Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Pile (P) and Pedrick (D) owned adjoining properties. D was going to build a factory on his property. D hired a surveyor to make sure he had the right boundary line. The surveyor made an error and the wall when built encroached on P’s property. The brick wall was eighteen inches thick. It rests upon a foundation wall which is two feet thick, and for about fifty feet, the foundation wall encroached on P's property on an average of one and a half inches to one and five-eighths inches. The ends of the stones used in the foundation wall project into Ps' lands below the surface one and three-eighths inches. D offered to make it a party wall by agreement and give P free use of it, as such, on condition that the windows on the third and fourth floors should remain open until P should desire to use the wall. The solution was to remove it or treat it as a permanent trespass and pay damages. P insisted on removal. The court granted the remedy. Ds sought permission to go onto P’s property to chip off the ends. D offered to pay for all damages in the process. P refused. The court prohibited workers from entering onto P’s property to remove the wall. P and D were ordered to split court costs. P and D appealed about splitting costs. P wanted the removal of the windows, and D claimed he should have been allowed to enter P's property to remove the encroachment. P and D appealed, and it was affirmed, and D appealed again.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co