Cagney v. Sweet

Decided January 7, 1897

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1897-01-07

<p>1. Injunctions—Relating to Party Walls.—When a person has a right under a party wall agreement to carry the wall up higher, although it may shut off the view from the other party’s windows and lessen the light coming thereto, he may do the same thing by the erection of a screen upon such wall, without entitling the other party to relief by injunction.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1920

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1897-01-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Waterman

¶1delivered the opinion of the Oourt.

¶2Granting that the wall upon which the screen was built is a party wall, we do not think appellant is entitled to restrain the building of a screen thereon. Appellee had a right to carry the wall up higher, which would have, as effectually as the screen, shut off the view from appellee’s windows and lessened the light coming thereto.

¶3Appellee has not done, and is not threatening to do, any injury to the wall.

¶4Appellant testifies that the screen darkens his windows. This, by carrying the wall higher, appellee had a right to do; that he has done it by the erection of a screen, does not entitle appellant to relief by way of injunction.

¶5The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.