Buck v. Weeks

45 A. 325, 194 Pa. 522, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 429
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedFebruary 5, 1900
DocketAppeal, No. 237
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 45 A. 325 (Buck v. Weeks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Buck v. Weeks, 45 A. 325, 194 Pa. 522, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 429 (Pa. 1900).

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Fell,

The plaintiffs declared in trespass for the unlawful entry with force and arms upon their premises and the tearing down of the party wall between their building and that owned by one of the defendants. The proofs utterly failed to sustain the averments of their declaration. They showed that the entry [524]*524was for the purpose of placing supports under the floors of plaintiffs’ building, and was made without objection by them, and that the removal of the wall was by direction of the building inspectors. There was not the slightest evidence that the work was done in an unskilful or negligent manner; that its completion was unnecessarily delayed, or that any injury or inconvenience was caused the plaintiffs, except such as was the unavoidable consequence of the exercise of a lawful right by the owner of the adjoining property. There was nothing to sustain a recovery on the ground on which the action was brought.

■ Whether under this form of action a recovery could be had for the damages to the plaintiffs’ property, which were not the result of negligence, and to what extent the liability of an owner who repairs or removes a party wall without negligence is enlarged by section 9 of the Act of June 8, 1898, P. L. 360, it is unnecessary to consider. The evidence as to the damage to the building was too vague and uncertain to warrant a finding for any amount for the plaintiffs. The witnesses were unable to state what part of the papering and painting of the building and the repairing of the roof afterward done by the plaintiffs was made necessary by the rebuilding of the party wall, or what their cost was.

The judgment of nonsuit was properly entered, and it is now affirmed.

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

Related

Mary Jane Stevens Co. v. First Nat. Bldg. Co.
57 P.2d 1099 (Utah Supreme Court, 1936)
Thompson v. DeLong
110 A. 251 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1920)
Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co.
106 A. 238 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 A. 325, 194 Pa. 522, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buck-v-weeks-pa-1900.