Girard Trust v. Dennis

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

Girard Trust v. Dennis

4 Pa. D. & C.2d 759, 1955 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 91

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

DecidedJune 27, 1955

Docketno. 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Pa. D. & C.2d 759 (Girard Trust v. Dennis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Girard Trust v. Dennis, 4 Pa. D. & C.2d 759, 1955 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 91 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Flood, J.,

Plaintiff in its exceptions claims that the chancellor did not properly dispose of his contention that he holds one half of the party wall by adverse possession. Plaintiff and its predecessors in title have been in exclusive possession of the building for over 21 years during which defendant made no use of it and claims that, as a result, the half of the party wall on defendant’s property is plain[760]*760tiff’s by adverse possession. He cites Baxter v. Girard Trust Co., 288 Pa. 256 (1927), a case which involves the question of adverse possession by the encroachment of a building. However, in our opinion, the line of cases covering adverse possession by a wall built upon another’s land does not govern the case before us.

Here the wall was already built on the ground by a common predecessor in title of the parties. Thereafter, the owner of the land divided it by mortgaging part of it by an instrument which divided the building in such a way that one half of the wall went to defendant’s predecessors in title and the other half to plaintiff’s, making the wall a party wall, as this court held in an earlier adjudication.

From the time of the division, plaintiff and its predecessors have done nothing which could be called an adverse taking of possession, since admittedly the use of the windows for light and air is not sufficient for this purpose.

The exceptions are dismissed and the decree nisi is, therefore, made final.

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

Flood, J.,

Plaintiff in its exceptions claims that the chancellor did not properly dispose of his contention that he holds one half of the party wall by adverse possession. Plaintiff and its predecessors in title have been in exclusive possession of the building for over 21 years during which defendant made no use of it and claims that, as a result, the half of the party wall on defendant’s property is plain[760]*760tiff’s by adverse possession. He cites Baxter v. Girard Trust Co., 288 Pa. 256 (1927), a case which involves the question of adverse possession by the encroachment of a building. However, in our opinion, the line of cases covering adverse possession by a wall built upon another’s land does not govern the case before us.

Here the wall was already built on the ground by a common predecessor in title of the parties. Thereafter, the owner of the land divided it by mortgaging part of it by an instrument which divided the building in such a way that one half of the wall went to defendant’s predecessors in title and the other half to plaintiff’s, making the wall a party wall, as this court held in an earlier adjudication.

From the time of the division, plaintiff and its predecessors have done nothing which could be called an adverse taking of possession, since admittedly the use of the windows for light and air is not sufficient for this purpose.

The exceptions are dismissed and the decree nisi is, therefore, made final.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Pa. D. & C.2d 759, 1955 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/girard-trust-v-dennis-pactcomplphilad-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack