Bertram v. Curtis

31 Iowa 46
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedJanuary 27, 1870
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 31 Iowa 46 (Bertram v. Curtis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bertram v. Curtis, 31 Iowa 46 (iowa 1870).

Opinion

Cole, J.

1. conveybramU pmtywalL — The single question presented by this appeal is, whether the resting of one-half of a neighbor’s wall upon the contiguous vacant lot constitutes an incumbrance on the lot, so that the vendor would be liable to the vendee, in the absence of stipulation or representation in respect of it? We unite in holding that it does not.

If no half-wall was resting upon it at the time of sale and conveyance, the owner of the contiguous lot might, under our statute, construct and rest it thereon the very next day, without any liability to the purchaser and then owner. This right to so rest a half-wall upon the contiguous lot is given by statute, and it is no more an incumbrance after the wall is erected than before. The right so to rest the wall is an easement mutual to contiguous lots. The burden of expense in constructing the wall and enjoying the easement rests primarily upon him who first enters upon it. The other must share equally that burden when he enters upon the enjoyment of his easement. When both enjoy the easement, it is like the original right, exactly reciprocal, and the wall is then a party-wall.

2. — partysumption. In the absence of any representations by the vendor of a vacant lot as to the ownership of a wall resting one-half, thereon, the presumption of law, under our statute, is that the ownership is • in him who built it or his grantees; for the builder has no legal right to demand, nor the owner of the vacant lot any obligation [48]*48to pay for, the half resting on the vacant lot, until the owner of such lot shall use the same as a party-wall, though he may do so, or join in building it. But in case the wall was so used by the owner of the lot, vacant when the wall was built, but now covered with a building resting therein, the presumption is that it belongs to the grantor of the lot; for prior thereto, and at the time of using it, the law devolved upon him the duty and obligation to pay therefor. In both cases the presumptions are in accord with the legal right and the reciprocal obligation. Bev., ch. 83, §§ 1914 to 1925.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Younker v. McCutchen
177 Iowa 634 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1916)
Capital City Investment Co. v. Burnham
121 N.W. 708 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1909)
Percival v. Colonial Investment Co.
115 N.W. 941 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1908)
Ensign v. Colt
52 A. 829 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1902)
Pireaux v. Simon
48 N.W. 674 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1891)
Burr v. Lamaster
9 L.R.A. 637 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1890)
Everett v. Edwards
5 L.R.A. 110 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1889)
Conduitt v. Ross
26 N.E. 198 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1885)
Molony v. Dixon
21 N.W. 488 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 Iowa 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bertram-v-curtis-iowa-1870.