Party Wall

A wall erected on the line _ between two adjoining estates, belonging to different persons, for the use of both estates. 2 Bouv. Inst, note 1615. It is ordinarily owned in common by the adjoining owners, but may be divided longitudinally or divided latitudinally, the sections being subject to mutual easements, or it may belong to one owner, and be subject to an easement in favor of the other. 50 N. Y. 646; 75 111. 118.

A wall erected on the line between two adjoining pieces of land belonging to different persons, for the use of both properties. 2 Washb. R. P. 385. A structure for the common benefit and convenience of both the tenements which it separates. Field v. Leiter, 118 111. 17, 6 N. E. 877. The phrase ordinarily means a wall of which the two adjoining owners are tenants in common. Enulen, Building leases 285. It does not as a matter of law necessarily imply a solid structure; Hammann v. Jordan, 129 N. Y. 61, 29 N. E. 294. It has been held that by usage the terms party-wall and partition wall have come to mean a solid wall; Normile v. Gill, 159 Mass. 427, 34 N. E. 543, 38 Am. St. Rep. 441. Cuttings of 4 inches in a party wall 18 inches thick for the insertion of joists and sleepers do not impinge on a contract that the wall shall be and remain a solid wall; Mc Minn v. Karter, 116 Ala. 390, 22 South. 517. • It is a wall built by one owner partly on the land of another for the common benefit of both. The adjoining owners are not joint tenants or tenants in common of the party wall. Each is possessed in severalty of his own soil up to the dividing line, and of that portion of the wall which rests upon it; but the soil of each, with the wall belonging to him, is burdened with an easement or servitude in favor of the other, to the end that it may afford a support to the wall and buildings of such other; Hoffman v. Kuhn, 57 Miss. 746, 34 Am. Rep. 491; Odd Fellows’ Hall Ass’n v. Hegele, 24 Or. 16, 32 Pac. 681. “The words party wall appear to me to express a meaning rather popular than legal, and they may, I think, be used in four difants in common, which is the most common and the primary meaning of the term. In the next place the term may be used to signify a wall divided longitudinally into two strips, one belonging to each of the neighboring owners. Then, thirdly, the term may mean a wall which belongs entirely to one of the adjoining owners, but is subject to an easement or right in the other to have it maintained as a dividing wall between the two tenements. The term is so used in some of the building acts. Lastly, the term may designate a wall divided longitudinally into two moieties, each moiety being subject to a cross-easement in favor of the owner of the other moiety.” 14 Ch. Div. 192. A brick wall which is used in common, as the wall of two adjacent properties in a city, is a party-wall, if erected partly on the soil of each, and so used for many years without question or complaint by either; Kelly v. Taylor, 43 La. Ann. 1157, 10 South. 255. Every wall and separation between two buildings is presumed to be a common or party wall if the contrary be not shown; Bellenot v. Laube’s Ex’r, 104 Va. 842, 52 S. E. 60S. Party-walls are generally regulated by statute. The principles of these acts generally are that the wall shall be built equally on the lands of the adjoining owners, at their joint expense, hut when only one owner wishes to use such wall, it is built at his expense, and when the other wishes to make use of it he pays one-half of its value; Spaulding v. Grundy, 126 Ky. 510, 104 S. W. 293, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 149, 128 Am. St. Rep. 328, 15 Ann. Cas. 1105. Each owner has a right to place his joists in it and use it for the support of his roof. See Sherred v. Cisco, 4 Sandf. (N. Y.) 480; Abrahams v. Ivrautler, 24 Mo. 69, 66 Am. Dec. 698.’ The law of party-walls is based on the doctrine of lateral support and is a statutory extension of the principle to buildings. An owner of a party- wall cannot extend the beams of his building beyond the middle of the wall; Lederer & Strauss v. C. Inv. Co., 130 la. 157, 106 N. W. 357, 8 Ann. Cas. 317. When the party-wall has been built, and the adjoining owner is desirous of having a deeper foundation, he has a right to undermine such wall, using due care and diligence to prevent any injury to his neighbor; and, having done so, he is not answerable for any consequential damages which may ensue; Panton v. Holland, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 92, 8 Am. Dec. 369; Thurston v. Hancock, 12 Mass. 220, 7 Am. Dec. 57; Runnels v. Bullen, 2 N. H. 534. An adjoining owner of a partywall has a right to increase its height, but in doing so is liable for any injury to the adjoining building, even though the addition the wall to fall; Brooks V* Curtis, 50 N. Y. 639, 10 Am. Rep. 545; Negus v. Becker, 68 Hun 293, 22 N. Y. Supp. 986. ' When such a wall exists between two buildings, belonging to different persons, and one of them takes it down with his buildings, he is required to erect another in its place in a reasonable time and with the least inconvenience; the other owner must contribute to the expense, if the wall required repairs, but such expense will be limited to the costs of the old wall; 3 Kent 436; Eno v. Del Yecchio, 6 Duer (N. Y.) 17. When the wall is taken down, it must be done with care; but it is not the duty of the person taking it down to shore up or prop the house of his neighbor to prevent it from falling. If, however, the work be done with negligence, by which injury accrues to the neighboring house, an action will lie; 1 M. & M.,362; Partridge v. Gilbert, 15 N. Y. 601, 69 Am. Dec. 632. Where the owner of two contiguous lots erects a brick messuage, with a division wall, and sells to different purchasers, the w r all is not a party-wall; Oat v. Middleton, 2 Miles (Pa.) 247 (but see infra as to the Pennsylvania statute); contra, Eno v. Del Vecchio, 6 Duer (N. Y.) 17. The right to use a partywall is not lost by lapse of time, even seventy-five years; Roudet v. Bedell, 1 Phila. (Pa.) 366. It can be acquired by prescription after a sufficient period; Schile v. Brokhahus, 80 N. Y. 614. A party-wall must be built without openings; Dauenliauer v. Devine, 51 Tex. 480, 32 Am. Rep. 627. Corcoran v. Nailor, 6 Mackey (D. C.) 580; Bouncy v. Grecmvood 96 Me. 335, 52 Atl. 786; Dunscomb v. Randolph, 107 Tenn. 89, 64 S. W. 21, 89 Am. St. Rep. 915; Normille v. Gill, 159 Mass. 427, 34 N. E. 543, 38 Am. St. Rep. 441; National Commercial Bank v. Gray, 71 Hun 295, 21 N. Y. Supp. 997. A party- wall can only be built for mutual support; painting a sign on it is unlawful; Wistar v. Pub. Soc., 2