Wall v. Eisenstadt, 969.

• Decision Date: 04 May 1931
• Docket Number: No. 969.,969.
• Citation: 154 A. 651
• Parties: WALL et al. v. EISENSTADT et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

154 A. 651

WALL et al.

v. EISENSTADT et al.

No. 969.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 4, 1931.

Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Hugh B. Baker, Judge.

Suit by John W. Wall and another against Abraham Eisenstadt and another. Decree of dismissal, and complainants appeal.

Appeal sustained, and decree reversed.

William T. O'Donnell, of Bristol, and Ralph M. Greenlaw and Edwin J. Tetlow, both of Providence, for appellants.

Knauer & Fowler, of Providence, for appellees.

HAHN, J.

This is a bill in equity to restrain adjoining landowners from committing a nuisance by erecting an extension to their garage upon a portion of Constitution street in the town of Bristol. The cause is here on complainants' appeal from a decree of the superior court dismissing the bill.

The court below found that complainants had not proved that they would suffer such substantial damage and injury as a result of the extension of the garage as to enable them to maintain the bill as individuals and also that the proposed addition would not extend into Constitution street, as the present occupation line is the northerly line thereof.

Complainants' house is situated on the north side of Constitution street and adjoins the respondents' land on the east The bill alleges that the building inspector of the town of Bristol threatens to grant to the respondents permission to extend their garage southerly into said street a distance of about 11 feet. The complainants contend that the proposed extension of said building into the street will cause special damage to them. There is a sun parlor on the southwesterly corner of complainants' house with a window facing west. The distance between the division line of the properties and the westerly side of complainants' house is 17.64 feet. Respondents' garage at present extends easterly to the boundary line between the properties and southerly to a line which complainants contend is the northerly line of Constitution street and therefore the proposed addition to the garage will extend 11.57 feet southerly into Constitution street. Such addition will materially interfere with the view from the westerly window of complainants' sun parlor. The complainants have a clear view from this westerly window down Constitution street to Hope street. The proposed addition to the garage will also obstruct the air and breeze from the west. A real estate broker testified that in his opinion the erection of the proposed addition would cause a substantial loss and depreciation in the value of complainants' property. An engineer testified to the obstruction of view and to the loss of light and air. That such would be the effect of the proposed extension is obvious from an examination of a photograph filed as one of the exhibits.

The law recognizes an easement of light and air in the street in favor of the abutting owner. "This right to light and air is not restricted to the space immediately in front of the abutter's property but extends on either side a reasonable distance, to prevent the obstruction of the access of light and air to the abutter's property." Lewis on Eminent Domain (3d Ed.) § 121, 123. "An easement of light, air, or view is a valuable property right, and in general it is held that an interference with it by a structure on a street or highway is ground for an injunction at the instance of the abutting owner." 40 A. L. R 1321, note. See, also, World Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 113 Neb. 306, 203 N. W. 574, 40 A. L. R. 1313 (1925); Clark v. City Treasurer, 10 R. I. 35, 14 Am. Rep. 654; Sweet v. Conley, 20 R. I. 381, 39 A. 326; Steere v. Tucker, 39 R. I. 531, 99 A. 583; Traf ton v. Downey, 51 R. I. 87, 151 A. 4, 5.

In Steere v. Tucker, supra, respondent's building stood upwards of 40 feet from the nearest portion of complainant's land and upwards of 65 feet from the nearest part of complainant's house, by reason of which it was held that the building did not in any substantial manner interfere with complainant's right of view. The court said (page 545 of 39 R. I., 99 A. 583, 588): "There is no evidence from either himself (complainant) or any other witness to show that his property has been injured in the slightest degree; there is nothing to show that any air or any light is cut off from his premises by reason of the alleged encroachment. * * * No inference can be drawn from its size or location that it even casts a shadow at any time upon the complainant's land, or that it interferes in the slightest degree with the free circulation of the air, so far as the complainant is concerned." This decision emphasizes the fact that there was no special damage to complainant, and recognizes the principle thereafterwards laid down in Trafton v. Downey, supra, that one suffering "a private and special injury different from that suffered by the public at large * * * is entitled to relief by her individual suit." In the present case respondents' building extends to the boundary or division line of the two properties and within 18 feet of complainants' house. It is clear that the proposed addition would not only cast a shadow upon complainants' land, but would materially interfere with the complainants' right to light, air, and view.

There remains to be considered the question of the width of Constitution street and whether the land upon which respon...