Pile v. Pedrick
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeals, No. 440, Jan. T., 1894, and No. 101, July T., 1894, by plaintiffs and defendants, from decree of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1890, No. 456, on bill in equity. Bill in equity to compel the removal of a wall.
Read the full summary
Appeals, No. 440, Jan. T., 1894, and No. 101, July T., 1894, by plaintiffs and defendants, from decree of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1890, No. 456, on bill in equity. Bill in equity to compel the removal of a wall. The bill averred that the parties owned adjoining properties, that the defendants had erected a large factory and liad in its erection exercised their right to use a portion of the plaintiffs’ ground for their party wall; that the defendants were building an additional story to their factory and had inserted some windows in the said wall, and were about to insert others.…
1Opinion of the Court
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…
2Cited by21 opinions
- SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2003
- Proctor v. HuntingtonWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- Mary Jane Stevens Co. v. First Nat. Bldg. Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1936
- Proctor v. HuntingtonWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- Sime v. JensenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.