Gish v. Walker

D.C. Circuit

Gish v. Walker

48 App. D.C. 42, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2350

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 6, 1918

DocketNo. 3124

StatusPublished

This text of 48 App. D.C. 42 (Gish v. Walker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gish v. Walker, 48 App. D.C. 42, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2350 (D.C. Cir. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Van Orsdel

delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is conceded that plaintiff’s wall was constructed in all respects as required for a party wall of a two-story dwelling. It is also conceded that defendant, under the building regulations, but for plaintiff’s wall, would have been required to-construct a 13-inch wall for his three-story dwelling. It therefore appears that, by the presence of plaintiff’s wall, defendant was only required to construct a 9-inch wall to the height of plaintiff’s wall.

Undoubtedly, defendant could construct a wall independent [44]*44of the party wall, and be relieved from liability to plaintiff. But is that what defendant did? There is testimony that he attached to the party wall in front; that he used the chimney in the party wall, extending it to sufficient height to accommodate his building, and that he rested 4 inches of the 13-inch portion of his wall on top of the party wall. If these facts be true, we think he so used the party wall as to entitle plaintiff to recover. On -these points there is some conflict in the evidence, but this was for the jury to reconcile. It therefore was error to direct a verdict.

The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause is remanded for a new trial. Reversed and remanded.

A motion for rehearing was denied May 25, 1918.

A motion for a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States was denied May 25, 1918.

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

Mr. Justice Van Orsdel

delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is conceded that plaintiff’s wall was constructed in all respects as required for a party wall of a two-story dwelling. It is also conceded that defendant, under the building regulations, but for plaintiff’s wall, would have been required to-construct a 13-inch wall for his three-story dwelling. It therefore appears that, by the presence of plaintiff’s wall, defendant was only required to construct a 9-inch wall to the height of plaintiff’s wall.

Undoubtedly, defendant could construct a wall independent [44]*44of the party wall, and be relieved from liability to plaintiff. But is that what defendant did? There is testimony that he attached to the party wall in front; that he used the chimney in the party wall, extending it to sufficient height to accommodate his building, and that he rested 4 inches of the 13-inch portion of his wall on top of the party wall. If these facts be true, we think he so used the party wall as to entitle plaintiff to recover. On -these points there is some conflict in the evidence, but this was for the jury to reconcile. It therefore was error to direct a verdict.

The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause is remanded for a new trial. Reversed and remanded.

A motion for rehearing was denied May 25, 1918.

A motion for a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States was denied May 25, 1918.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 App. D.C. 42, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gish-v-walker-cadc-1918.