OCR Text |
Show DECISION GIVEN ON ECCLES CORNER The long looked for decision from the supreme court of I tab is the injunction in-junction proceedings of the Commercial Commer-cial National bank of this city against the late David Eccles, et al. was handed hand-ed down Saturday afternoon, the majority ma-jority of the justices of the supreme bench affirming the decision of Judge N. J Harris of the district court. The decision was written by Justice Mc- arty and concurred in by Justice Straup, Justice Prick writing a dissenting dis-senting opinion The attorneys for the Eccles interests in-terests have not yel received the written opinion of the court and cannot can-not at this time state what further action In the premises may be taken. It is possible, they say. in the face of s dissenting opinion, thai n re -hearing I may be asked for However, no plans I have been made and it is probable the matter will not be earried further in the courts. In the meantime the steel skyscraper skyscrap-er will be erected, the construction work to begin within tho next few days. The steel Is on hand and the contractors ?:re read For the pres ent, the building will be erected to a point within about 2S feet of the old wall in controversy and it is possible that, inasmuch as the court has rendered ren-dered Its decision, the old wall will ' be taken down at once and replaced by a steel wall, the adjoining property-interests property-interests to the south to be protected in accordance with the ruling of the courts. The attorneys for the Eccles' inter- iU fully expected a reversal of the lower court's decision but it was not forthcoming, so they will abide by the results unless a change can be had through a rehearing before the supreme su-preme court. A tew months after the destruction by fire of the Eccles building ou Twenty -fourth street and Washington Washing-ton avenue, the owner of Ihe property proceeded to clear the ruins, but, when the tearing down of the south wall began, the Commercial National bank had issued from the district court a writ of Injunt 'ion to prevent the parties from destroying the wall below the third g 1 1 1 r j claiming that the bank owned a pari of the wall and had been using it to support the floors of building adjoining it on the south. The work was stopped and finally the case was heard before Judge Harris on its merits The de-fondant de-fondant denied tha? the bank had an interest in the wall The decision of Judge Harris In effect was that the plaintiff company as entitled to an easement in the wall for the purpose of supporting! the floors and roof of the building! and which had bf come attached to the j disputed wall, stating further, how-ver, how-ver, that the defendant was the owner of the wall and could remove It, Subject only to the easement prescribed pre-scribed ,ln tho decision. In the meantime Mr EOCec, the defendant, had plRnned to rebuild the Mock, but he did not care to proceed with the construction until the cloud on the title to the wall should be cleared away by a decision from the supreme court An appeal was takeu and Ihn corner has since remained a vacant pit. In hlg decision, Judge Harris held that tho plaintiff eomnnnv ptirchd an easement from the defendant, using us-ing the following language- That the plaintiff constructed Its building upon its land immediately south of the said land of the said 'leteiidani . I a nl Keck s in the ear 190.5. and at that time, for the sum Ol $634.67 paid to tho said defendant, the plaintiff purchased and became the owner of an easement in thej foundation and brick wall situated along the south boundary of the said1 defendant's premises from the base- ment to the center of the sills of the third story, and the said plaintiff has used the said wall for the support and maintenance of its building Bituated on its said premises from the time of the construction of the same. Thai no interest in the wall and foundation, founda-tion, other than the easement afore said, and no interests in the lands upon which said wall stands was pur i hasi d b i he plaintiff from I be defendant." de-fendant." The judge further stated in his conclusions, con-clusions, that the Eccles building was burned down In November. 1911, but thai the south wall was lefl standing, which "was sufficient and ample for the support and maintenance of the plaintiff's building as constructed on its said premises.'1 and that as it has no other support on the north side, the taking out of the wall in con-troversy con-troversy would cause the north wall of the building owned by the bank I ana become a mass or rums Respecting the question of tearing; licvi! the south wall of the Eccles' inins to erect a new one, the court! tai'l "The said wall is insufficient to support sup-port another building of, like kind as thai destroyed, and insufficient to support suHi new and modern build-legs build-legs as defendant proposes to erect, and that the defendant. David Eccles. Ec-cles. is entitled to tear down and remove re-move the wa situated along the south boundary of bis said premises, exercising such due care and dill-gence dill-gence in the prosecution thereof as j will prevent injury to the plaintiff's premises. "That the said defendant will be required to replace said wall at his! own expense, with such new and stronger wall as will meet the requirements re-quirements of his said new proposed building, and shall so construct the wall as to afford and give to the1 plaintiff the same easement, right and support and use for its building in I the said wall to be constructed as the plaintiff now has and enjoys in the ' present wall." The decision was given May 1. 1912, a little more than a year ago. oo |