¶1The principal question is whether the owner of land in building a party wall partly upon his own land and partly upon that lying adjacent has a right, against the objection of the adjacent owner, to leave openings in the wall for windows, to be used for his own convenience until such time as his neighbor shall build upon the adjacent land. We are of opinion that he has no such right. The ownership of the land under a party wall remains in the several owners, subject to the easement of supporting the building upon each lot by means of the common wall. This easement is limited to what is necessary for that purpose. The maintenance of windows by one owner against the objection of the other is inconsistent with the title and rights of the latter. By usage the words “ party wall ” and “partition wall” have come to mean a solid wall. Various reasons of inconvenience or peril have been assigned for the doe*428trine, but they are all referable, we think, to the general doctrine that the easement is only a limited one, and it is not to be extended so as to include rights and privileges not belonging to the character of a wall which is to be owned in common, and in which the rights of each owner are equal. This question has not heretofore been determined in this State, though other questions relating to party walls have arisen. Vinton v. Greene, 158 Mass. 426. Everett v. Edwards, 149 Mass. 588. Matthews v. Dixey, 149 Mass. 595. Quinn v. Morse, 130 Mass. 317. Phillips v. Bordman, 4 Allen, 147. The decisions in these cases are not directly applicable; but in other States the almost uniform current of decision has been against the right to leave such openings in party walls. Partridge v. Gilbert, 15 N. Y. 601, 614. Brooks v. Curtis, 50 N. Y. 639. St. John v. Sweeney, 59 How. Pr. 175. Traute v. White, 1 Dick. 437. Vollmer's appeal, 61 Penn. St. 118. Milne's appeal, 81 Penn. St. 54. Ingals v. Plamondon, 75 Ill. 118. Gibson v. Holden, 115 Ill. 199. Bloch v. Isham, 28 Ind. 37. Sullivan v. Graffort, 35 Iowa, 531. Graves v. Smith, 87 Ala. 450. Dauenhauer v. Devine, 51 Tex. 480. 3 Kent Com. 437, note. Decree affirmed.
159 Mass. 427
Normille v. Gill
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided June 24, 1893
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1893-06-24
Bill in equity, filed October 13, 1892, praying that the defendant be restrained from using a wall put by him on the line dividing the estate of the plaintiffs from that of the defendant for any other purpose than that of resting timbers thereon, and that he be restrained from building windows therein. Hearing before Hammond, J., who entered a decree for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appealed to this court. The material facts appear in the opinion.
Relies on Partridge v. . Gilbert and Others · Brooks v. . Curtis · Gibson v. Holden
Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Party-Wall”
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1893-06-24
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 1999
9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →