O'Malley v. De LaPuente
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
O'Malley v. De LaPuente, 72 Pa. Super. 102 (1919)
1919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 259
Henderson, Kephart, Orlad, Orlady, Porter, Trexler, Williams
O'Malley v. De LaPuente
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
The plaintiff and defendant are adjoining owners of premises on Bidge avenue, Philadelphia. A controversy arose as to the liability for a reconstructed party wall and this resulted in an action by the plaintiff against the defendant, which was submitted to a judge of the Municipal Court without the intervention of a jury. The findings of fact by the trial judge are warranted by the evidence and decisive of the defendant’s objections to the plaintiff’s right to recover. The conclusion reached by Mm in finding in favor of the plaintiff is fully sustained by the authorities stated in his opinion, and for the reasons therein given the judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Party walls — Construction—New use by second party — Liability for portion of cost. Where the first builder has erected a brick party -wall in place of an old frame one, and the owner of an adjoining lot subsequently alters her building and makes new use of the party wall, she is liable for a proportionate share of the new wall. Where the second builder erects a building, which would be unlawful but for the fact that the party wall of the first forms one part of the structure, she is making a new use of the wall and becomes liable for her proportionate share of the cost. Party walls — Cost of construction— Statute of limitations. The use of the party wall creates the liability of the second builder, and a claim for compensation may be presented any time within six years from the date of such use.