Engel v. Siderides
| Decision Date | 08 February 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 16.,16. |
| Citation | 164 A. 397 |
| Parties | ENGEL v. SIDERIDES et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Suit by Aaron Engel against Nicholas Siderides and another. Decree for defendants, and complainant appeals.
Affirmed.
Platoff, Saperstein & Platoff, of Union City, for appellant.
Burke, Sheridan & Hourigan, of Union City, for respondents.
The bill in this case was filed to restrain the defendants from continuing to maintain a wall which had been erected on land owned by them and adjoining that of the complainant, and which it was claimed obstructed the light and air entering the windows of the complainant's building.
Complainant is the owner of premises Nos. 181 and 183 Bergenline avenue, Union City, on which now stands a two-story frame building consisting of a store and two apartments above. The defendants are the owners of premises to the north known as No. 185 Bergenline avenue. Formerly both properties were owned by one Riemenschneider who fifty years ago erected a dwelling house on No. 183 Bergenline avenue, placing four windows in the north wall of the building. These windows looked out on the then empty lot adjoining to the north. This lot was later built upon to within a few feet of the wall in which the windows were placed, leaving a small space between the buildings. In July, 1919, the owner of the entire premises having died, her executors conveyed the premises Nos. 181 and 183 Bergenline avenue to one Rogers under whom the complainant holds, and at the same time conveyed the premises No. 185 Bergenline avenue to the predecessor in title of the defendants; the deeds in either case making no reference to an easement of light and air.
In 1928 the defendants erected a wall on the open space to within a few inches of the windows in the complainant's building (now altered as indicated above), and the present bill is filed to restrain the continued maintenance of this structure, it being claimed that an easement existed on defendants' lot for light and air through the windows in complainant's wall.
The doctrine respecting the easement of light and air has not been generally adopted in this country, many of our sister states refusing to recognize it as a substantive part of their common law, Washburn on Easements (3d Ed.) p. 612; 19 C. J., 903, and we are urged to declare a like rule in this state. It has, however, in so far as respects implied easements, been accepted as part of the common law of our own state, Sutphen v. Therkelson, 38 N. J. Eq. 318; Greer v. Van Meter, 54 N. J. Eq. 270, 33 A. 794; Lengyel v. Meyer, 70 N. J. Eq. 501, 62 A. 548: Fowler v. Wicks, 74 N. J. Eq. 603, 70 A. 682; City National Bank v. Van Meter, 59 N. J. Eq. 32, 45 A. 280 (affirmed 61 N. J. Eq. 674, 47 A. 1131) but rejected as based on prescription or adverse user, King v. Miller, 8 N. J. Eq. 559, 55...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blumberg v. Weiss
...N.J.Eq. 10, 50 A. 621. See, also, Cerra v. Maglio, 98 N.J.Eq. 481, 131 A. 96, affirmed, 100 N.J.Eq. 341, 134 A. 916, and Engel v. Siderides, 112 N.J.Eq. 431, 164 A. 397. There is no occasion to determine whether—and, if it may, under what circumstances—the grant of an easement of light and ......
-
Klement v. Del. River
...within his proper lines and thereby interfered with their view and access of air, etc. Hayden v. Dutcher, 31 N.J.Eq. 217; Engel v Siderides, 112 N.J.Eq. 431, 164 A. 397; Tompkins v. Harwood, 24 N.J.L. 425. Au thorities might readily be As to the changes of grade and vacation of streets, it ......
-
Blumberg v. Weiss
...v. Therkelson, 38 N.J.Eq. 318; Cerra v. Maglio, 98 N.J.Eq. 481, 131 A. 96, affirmed 100 N.J.Eq. 341, 134 A. 916; Engel v. Siderides, 112 N.J.Eq. 431, 164 A. 397), but here we have the converse situation where the owner of two adjoining lots claims the right to light and air as an easement i......
-
Slotoroff v. Nassau Associates
...mod. and aff'd 46 N.J.Eq. 605 (22 A. 128) (E. & A. 1890), aff'd 47 N.J.Eq. 324 (22 A. 128) (E. & A. 1890); Engel v. Siderides, 112 N.J.Eq. 431, 433 (164 A. 397) (E. & A. 1933)) In Blumberg v. Weiss, 126 N.J.Eq. 616, 10 A.2d 743 (Ch. 1940), rev'd 129 N.J.Eq. 34, 17 A.2d 823 (E. & A. 1941), t......