Moye v. Morrison

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Moye v. Morrison

81 Pa. Super. 251, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 59

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 25, 1922

DocketAppeal, 181

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 81 Pa. Super. 251 (Moye v. Morrison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moye v. Morrison, 81 Pa. Super. 251, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 59 (Pa. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

The plaintiff in this action of assumpsit seeks to recover of the defendant, under the provisions of the Act of February 24, 1721, 2 Sm. Laws 124, for the use of a portion of a party wall, erected between their adjoining properties. The pleadings, which were offered in evidence, established that the wall in question was a party wall, and the only question at issue was whether the defendant had used a portipn of the wall in the erection of a new structure upon her property. The opinion of Judge Audenried, of the court below, which appears in the report of this case, fully states the facts and so satisfactorily vindicates the conclusion at which he arrived, that extended discussion of the question involved is not necessary. The front wall of the new building extended up to and adjoined the party wall, the roof, at the time the action was brought, extended up to and adjoined the party wall; the party wall was the only wall which enclosed the new building upon that side. It was not necessary, in order to involve a use of the wall contemplated by the statute, that the party wall should carry the weight of the new building: Pennsylvania Co., etc., v. Odd Fellows, 50 Pa. Superior Ct. 255; O’Malley v. De LaPuente, 72 Pa. Superior Ct. 102.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

The plaintiff in this action of assumpsit seeks to recover of the defendant, under the provisions of the Act of February 24, 1721, 2 Sm. Laws 124, for the use of a portion of a party wall, erected between their adjoining properties. The pleadings, which were offered in evidence, established that the wall in question was a party wall, and the only question at issue was whether the defendant had used a portipn of the wall in the erection of a new structure upon her property. The opinion of Judge Audenried, of the court below, which appears in the report of this case, fully states the facts and so satisfactorily vindicates the conclusion at which he arrived, that extended discussion of the question involved is not necessary. The front wall of the new building extended up to and adjoined the party wall, the roof, at the time the action was brought, extended up to and adjoined the party wall; the party wall was the only wall which enclosed the new building upon that side. It was not necessary, in order to involve a use of the wall contemplated by the statute, that the party wall should carry the weight of the new building: Pennsylvania Co., etc., v. Odd Fellows, 50 Pa. Superior Ct. 255; O’Malley v. De LaPuente, 72 Pa. Superior Ct. 102.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 Pa. Super. 251, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moye-v-morrison-pasuperct-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack