Campbell v. Mesier
New York Court of Chancery
THE bill was filéd in April, 1809. In 1803, the plaintiff and Peter Mesier, deceased, were, respectively, owners of two houses and lots adjoining each other, in the city of New-York. The houses were old, and the plaintiff determined . . to pull down his house, and erect a new one on its scite. There was a party wall, standing equally on each lot, which divided the two houses.
Read the full summary
THE bill was filéd in April, 1809. In 1803, the plaintiff and Peter Mesier, deceased, were, respectively, owners of two houses and lots adjoining each other, in the city of New-York. The houses were old, and the plaintiff determined . . to pull down his house, and erect a new one on its scite. There was a party wall, standing equally on each lot, which divided the two houses. The plaintiff employed the city surveyor, and two master masons, to examine the party wall, and to ascertain whether he could safely build a new house, without pulling down the wall; and they certified their opinion,…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
From the proof in this case, it is manifest, that the wall in question was a party wall, in which the owners of the two houses and lots had an equal interest. All the witnesses who examined the lots and *337houses, and have expressed any opinion on the subject, unite in establishing that fact. Three of the witnesses were master builders, or masons, and skilled in questions and observations of that kind. It is, also, a fact, equally well ascertained, that this party wall, in 1803, when it was taken down by the plaintiff, was in a state of ruin and decay, and dangerous, and utterly…
2Cited by49 opinions
- Hatco Corporation v. W.R. Grace & Co.--Conn., a Corporation of the State of Connecticut, and Third-Party v. Allstate Insurance Company (As Successor to Northbrook Excess and Surplus Company) American Employers' Insurance Company Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London and the London Market Companies Commercial Union Insurance Company Continental Casualty Company Pacific Employers Insurance Company Unigard Security Insurance Company, Third-Party and Commercial Union Insurance Company, Third-Party and Fourth-Party v. Maryland Casualty Company, Fourth-Party and Fifth-Party v. American Centennial Insurance Company Evanston Insurance Company First State Insurance Company Gibraltar Casualty Company Hartford Casualty Insurance Company Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London and the London Market Companies Midland Insurance Company Reliance Insurance Company Republic Insurance Company Royal Indemnity Company Transport Indemnity, A/K/A Mission American Insurance Company Twin City Fire Insurance Company, Fifth-Party and W.R. Grace & Co.--Conn.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
- Brooks v. . CurtisNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Chipman v. Morill & WebsterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- Fox v. Hale & Norcross Silver Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- Henry v. Dubuque & Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1855
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.