Todd v. Stokes
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the District Court of Philadelphia. March 14. Hopkins, being the owner of a lot, entered into a contract with Waters to erect a house on the premises, and, by the agreement, Waters was to have the benefit of the party-wall on the east, “ and may dispose of the same for his own profit.” Hopkins conveyed to Todd, without notice of this agreement.
Read the full summary
In error from the District Court of Philadelphia. March 14. Hopkins, being the owner of a lot, entered into a contract with Waters to erect a house on the premises, and, by the agreement, Waters was to have the benefit of the party-wall on the east, “ and may dispose of the same for his own profit.” Hopkins conveyed to Todd, without notice of this agreement. Stokes, the adjoining owner, used the party-wall on the east, and Todd brought this action, which was turned into a cáse stated. The court gave judgment for defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtCoulter, J.
That compensation for one-half the cost of a party-wall, is only a chose in action, or personal liability against the second builder, has been so often decided, that it no longer remains an open question. There must be an end of disputation, even on a doubtful question; and the quiet and repose of society, for that purpose, adopts decision for the rule of right: Mes judicata pro veritate accipitur. Davids v. Harris, 9 Barr, 501, Hart v. Kucher, 5 S. & R. 1, Ingles v. Bringhurst, 1 Dal. 341, White v. Snyder, 2 Miles, 395, decide this question. And that principle rules this case. If Todd had…