Pile v. Pedrick , 167 Pa. 296 ( 1895 )

pile’s appeal.

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Williams,

The learned judge of the court below was right in holding that the wall in controversy was not a party wall. It was not intended to be. The defendants were building a factory and under the advice of their architect decided to build within their own lines in order to avoid the danger of injury to others from vibration which might result from the use of their machinery. They called upon the district surveyor to locate their line and built within it as so ascertained. Subsequent surveys by city surveyors have determined that the line was not accurately located at first but was about one and a half inches over on the plaintiffs. This leaves the ends of the stones used in the foundation wall projecting into the plaintiffs’ lands below the surface one and three eighths inches. This unintentional intrusion into the plaintiffs’ close is the narrow foundation on which this bill in equity rests. The wall resting on the stone foundation is conceded to be within the defendants’ line. The defendants offered nevertheless to make it a party wall by agreement and give to plaintiffs free use of it, as such, on condition that the windows on the third and fourth floors should remain open until the plaintiff should desire to use the wall. This offer was declined. The trespass was then to be remedied in one of two wa}'S. It could be treated with the plaintiffs’ consent as a permanent trespass and compensated for in damages, or the defendants could be compelled to remove the offending ends of the stones to the other side of the line. The plaintiffs insisted upon the latter course, and the court below has by its decree ordered that this should be done. The defendants then sought permission to go on the plaintiffs’ side of the line and chip off the projecting ends, offering to pay for all inconvenience or injury the plaintiffs or their tenants might suffer by their so doing. This they refused. Nothing remained but to take down and rebuild the entire wall from the defendants’ side and with their building resting on it. This the decree requires, but in view of the course of the litigation the learned judge divided the costs. This is the chief ground of complaint on this appeal. Costs are not of course in equity. They may be given or withheld as equity and good conscience require. It often happens that a chancellor is constrained to enforce a legal right under circumstances that involve hardship to the defendant, and in such cases it is, as it should be, common to dispose of the costs upon a consideration of all the circumstances and the position and conduct of the parties. The costs in this case were within the power of the chancellor. They were disposed of in the exercise of his official discretion, and we see no reason to doubt that they were disposed of properly. The decree is affirmed. The costs of this appeal to be paid by the appellant.

pedbick’s appeal.

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Williams,

April 8, 1895:

This is an appeal from the same decree just considered on the appeal of J. M. Pile, et al. It is not denied that the foundation wall on which the appellant has built was located under a mistake made by the district surveyor, and does in fact project slightly into the plaintiffs’ land. For one inch and three eighths the ends of the stones in the wall are said to project beyond the division line. The defendants have no right at law or in equity to occupy land that does not belong to them and we do not see how the court below could have done otherwise than recognize and act upon this principle. They must remove their wall so that it shall be upon their land. This the court directed should be done within a reasonable time. To avoid further controversy over this subject we will so far modify the decree as to permit such removal to be made within one year from the date of filing hereof. In all other respects the decree is affirmed. The appellants to pay all costs made by them upon this appeal.