Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

THE

AMERICAN AND ENGLISH ENCYCLOPÆDIA OF LAW.

PART PAYMENTS.—See FRAUDS, STATUTE OF, vol. 8, p. 736; LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS, vol. 13, p. 748; PAYMENT.

PART PERFORMANCE.-See FRAUDS, STATUTE OF, vol. 8, p. 738.

PARTY.—A person concerned or having or taking part in any affair, matter, transaction, or proceeding, considered individually ; also a side or part, composed of one or more individuals. 1- BURRILL.

1. Where a deed is executed by the at. In article 10 of the treaty between torney of the grantor, or officer or the United States and Great Britain, agent of a corporation, lawfully author. August 9, 1842 (8 St. at Large, 576), ized, he is the party executing the same providing that, on extradition, the who may make the acknowledgment. expense of apprehension and delivery Lovett v. Steam Sawmill Assoc., 6 shall be borne by the "party who Paige (N. Y.) 54.

makes the requisition, and receives the A statute enacting that the holder of fugitive," the word "party" refers to any negotiable note or bill may insti. the contracting parties to the treaty, tute one suit against the whole or any and has no reference to any question number of the parties liable to such which may arise between the governholder, but shall not institute more ment which receives the fugitive and than one suit on such note or bill, its officers or citizens. People v. should be construed as embracing all Board of Supervisors, 8 N. Y. Supp. the makers as one party, all the en- 752. dorsers as another, etc.; and, therefore, A Kentucky statute provides that in a suit and judgment upon such joint case of schism or division of the note or bill against one maker, or one church, each party is to have the use endorsee, etc., will constitute a bar to of the church and appurtenances a part any other suit against any other maker of the time in proportion to its memor endorser, etc. Archer v. Heiman, bers. Held, that where a number of 21 Ind. 29.

members of a church congregation, A statute declaring every contract although they constituted a majority for the sale of lands void, unless sub- thereof, dissolved their connection with scribed by the party by whom such the church of which they were memsale is to be made, or by the agent of bers, and with the entire ecclesiastical such party lawfully authorized, requires body of which it is a member, and signatures of all the vendors, when united with another and distant relig. more than one unite in the contract of ious organization, they cannot be resale. Snyder v. Neefus, 53 Barb. (N. garded as a "party" within the meaning

of the statute. McKinney v. Griggs, 5

Y.) 63.

PARTY AGGRIEVED.--(See also AGGRIEVED, vol. 1, p. 449 ; APPEAL, vol. 1, p. 616; PERSON; New TRIAL and other titles under which the term is likely to occur.) The expression “party ag. grieved" is not a technical expression ; the words are ordinary Eng. lish words, which are to have the ordinary meaning put upon them.1

Bush (Ky.) 401; s. C., 96 Am. Dec. aggrieved" to prosecute an action to 360.

set aside a judgment obtained by means Party or Privy. Though a covenant of the fraud of the "prevailing party," that the covenanter has not done, per held, not to authorize one not a party mitted, or suffered anything preventing to the action in which such judgment him from conveying, is not broken by was recovered, although he was directly his having assented to what he could interested in the results, to maintain not prevent, yet if the words "or been such statutory action. Stewart v. party or privy to" were added, there Duncan, 40 Minn. 410. would be a breach in such a case (Hob. An Indiana act provides that every son v. Middleton, 6 B. & C. 295; 9 D. telegraph company having lines within & R. 249. Vh. Elph. 490; Dart, 885, the State, etc., shall receive, dispatch, 886; Sug. V. & P. 603, 604). Vh. and transmit the same, with impartialClifford v. Hoare, 43 L. J. D. P. 225; ity, in the order in which they are reL. R., 9 C. P. 362; Permit.

ceived, and that any person contravenParty Read as Person.-"Signed by ing the act shall be liable to the party the party to be charged therewith," $$ aggrieved, to the penalty of $100. 4, 17, St. of Frauds; -—"Party" there is Held, that the act was penal in its not to be construed party as to a deed, nature and must be construed strictly, but person in general (Sug. V. & P. and that the sender alone is the party 129, citing 3 Atk. 503).

aggrieved within the meaning of the "Party" read “Person" in Barlow v. statute. Hadley v. Western Union Osborne, 6 H. L. Ca. 556.

Tel. Co., 115 Ind. 191; s. C., 21 Am. & See also Re Quartz Hill Gold Min. Eng. Corp. Cas. 72. Co., 21 Ch. Do 642; East London A Minnesota statute provides that Waterworks Company v. Vestry of St. "a party aggrieved" may appeal from Matthew Bethnal Green, 17 Q. B. D. an order appointing an administrator. 484.

“This does not include a mere debtor Boards for the equalization of taxes of the estate. It refers to one, who as are not judicial tribunals and a nomen. heir, devisee, legatee, or creditor, has clature used in acts relating to them, what may be called a legal interest in though sometimes such as is used in the assets of the estate and their due reference to proceedings in courts is administration." In Re Hardy, 35 not there used in its technical legal Minn, 193. sense. For instance, the word "party" In proceedings to vacate an assessas used in the Arkansas act, is used in ment for a street improvement, it apits popular sense of “person" and not peared that the partitioner purchased in its technical sense "party to a suit." the land assessed after the work had Prairie Co. v. Matthews, 46 Ark, 383. been commenced and before the assessSee also Pulaski Co. Equalization ment had been laid. The land was Board Cases, 49 Ark. 518. * See also conveyed to him, subject to any assessPERSON.

ment to be made for the work, and the 1. Robinson v. Currey, 7 Q. B. Div. payment of the assessment was made to

the principal consideration for the conSection 1294 Code of Civil Proced- veyance. Held, that it could not be ure of New York, gives the right of said, as matter of law, that the peti. appeal to the“party aggrieved.” It was tioner was not a "party aggrieved" held, in Watts Campbell Co. v. Yueng. within the meaning of the statute; that ling, 3 N. Y. Supp. 868, that, where to effect that result it is necessary that it judgment was rendered by request of should affirmatively appear that the legal defendant's attorney, defendant is not owner cannot in any respect be injured aggrieved, within the meaning of the by the assessment; that the conveyance statute.

imposed no liability upon the grantet The statute authorizing "the party beyond the payment of any legal assesse

470.

THE

AMERICAN AND ENGLISH ENCYCLOPÆDIA OF LAW.

PART PAYMENTS.-See FRAUDS, STATUTE OF, vol. 8, p. 736; LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS, vol. 13, p. 748 ; PAYMENT.

PART PERFORMANCE.-See FRAUDS, STATUTE OF, vol. 8, p. 738.

PARTY.-A person concerned or having or taking part in any affair, matter, transaction, or proceeding, considered individually ; also a side or part, composed of one or more individuals. 1—BURRILL,

1. Where a deed is executed by the at. In article 10 of the treaty between torney of the grantor, or officer or the United States and Great Britain, agent of a corporation, lawfully author. August 9, 1842 (8 St. at Large, 576), ized, he is the party executing the same providing that, on extradition, the who may make the acknowledgment. expense of apprehension and delivery Lovett v. Steam Sawmill Assoc., 6 shall be borne by the "party who Paige (N. Y.) 54.

makes the requisition, and receives the A statute enacting that the holder of fugitive," the word "party" refers to any negotiable note or bill may insti. the contracting parties to the treaty, tute one suit against the whole or any and has no reference to any question number of the parties liable to such which may arise between the governholder, but shall not institute more ment which receives the fugitive and than one suit on such note or bill, its officers or citizens. People v. should be construed as embracing all Board of Supervisors, 8 N. Y. Supp. the makers as one party, all the en- 752. dorsers as another, etc.; and, therefore, A Kentucky statute provides that in a suit and judgment upon such joint case of schism or division of the note or bill against one maker, or one church, each party is to have the use endorsee, etc., will constitute a bar to of the church and appurtenances a part any other suit against any other maker of the time in proportion to its memor endorser, etc. Archer v. Heiman, bers. Held, that where a number of 21 Ind. 29.

members of a church congregation, A statute declaring every contract although they constituted a majority for the sale of lands void, unless sub- thereof, dissolved their connection with scribed by the party by whom such the church of which they were memsale is to be made, or by the agent of bers, and with the entire ecclesiastical such party lawfully authorized, requires body of which it is a member, and signatures of all the vendors, when united with another and distant relig. more than one unite in the contract of ious organization, they cannot be resale. Snyder v. Neefus, 53 Barb. (N. garded as a "party" within the meaning Y.) 63.

of the statute. McKinney v. Griggs, 5

PARTY AGGRIEVED.--(See also AGGRIEVED, vol. 1, p. 449 ; APPEAL, vol. 1, p. 616; PERSON; NEW TRIAL and other titles under which the term is likely to occur.) The expression “party ag. grieved" is not a technical expression ; the words are ordinary Eng. lish words, which are to have the ordinary meaning put upon them."

Bush (Ky.) 401; 8. C., 96 Am. Dec. aggrieved" to prosecute an action to 360.

set aside a judgment obtained by means Party or Privy. --Though a covenant of the fraud of the "prevailing party," that the covenanter has not done, per held, not to authorize one not a party mitted, or suffered anything preventing to the action in which such judgment him from conveying, is not broken by was recovered, although he was directly his having assented to what he could interested in the results, to maintain not prevent, yet if the words "or been such statutory action. Stewart v. party or privy to" were added, there Duncan, 40 Minn. 410. would be a breach in such a case (Hob- An Indiana act provides that every son v. Middleton, 6 B. & C. 295; 9 D. telegraph company having lines within & R. 249. Vh. Elph. 490; Dart, 885, the State, etc., shall receive, dispatch, 886; Sug. V. & P. 603, 604). Vh. and transmit the same, with impartialClifford v. Hoare, 43 L. J. D. P. 225; ity, in the order in which they are reL. R., 9 C. P. 362; Permit.

ceived, and that any person contraven. Party Read as Person.—"Signed by ing the act shall be liable to the party the party to be charged therewith," $$ aggrieved, to the penalty of $100. 4, 17, St. of Frauds; "Party" there is Held, that the act was penal in its not to be construed party as to a deed, nature and must be construed strictly, but person in general (Sug. V. & P. and that the sender alone is the party 129, citing 3 Atk. 503).

aggrieved within the meaning of the "Party" read “Person" in Barlow v. statute. Hadley v. Western Union Osborne, 6 H. L. Ca. 556.

Tel. Co., 115 Ind. 191; s. C., 21 Am. & See also Re Quartz Hill Gold Min. Eng. Corp. Cas. 72. Co., 21 Ch. D642; East London A Minnesota statute provides that Waterworks Company v. Vestry of St. "a party aggrieved" may appeal from Matthew Bethnal Green, 17 Q. B. D. an order appointing an administrator. 484.

“This does not include a mere debtor Boards for the equalization of taxes of the estate. It refers to one, who as are not judicial tribunals and a nomen- heir, devisee, legatee, or creditor, has clature used in acts relating to them, what may be called a legal interest in though sometimes such as is used in the assets of the estate and their due reference to proceedings in courts is · administration.” In Re Hardy, 35 not there used in its technical legal Minn. 193. sense. For instance, the word "party" In proceedings to vacate an assess. as used in the Arkansas act, is used in ment for a street improvement, it ap. its popular sense of "person” and not peared that the partitioner purchased in its technical sense "party to a suit." the land assessed after the work had Prairie Co. v. Matthews, 46 Ark, 383. been commenced and before the assess. See also Pulaski Co. Equalization ment had been laid. The land was Board Cases, 49 Ark. 518. See also conveyed to him, subject to any assessPERSON.

ment to be made for the work, and the 1. Robinson v. Currey, 7 Q. B. Div. payment of the assessment was made to

the principal consideration for the conSection 1294 Code of Civil Proced- veyance. "Held, that it could not be ure of New York, gives the right of said, as matter of law, that the petiappeal to the party aggrieved.” It was tioner was not a "party aggrieved" held, in Watts Campbell Co. v. Yueng within the meaning of the statute; that ling, 3 N. Y. Supp. 868, that, where to effect that result it is necessary that it judgment was rendered by request of should affirmatively appear that the legal defendant's attorney, defendant is not owner cannot in any respect be injured aggrieved, within the meaning of the by the assessment; that the conveyance statute.

imposed no liability upon the grantee The statute authorizing "the party beyond the payment of any legal assess.

470.

PARTY-WALLS.—(See also EASEMENTS, vol. 6, p. 139; LAT. ERAL AND SUBJACENT SUPPORT, vol. 12, p. 933.)

1. Definition, 3.
II. How Created, 4.

(a) Party Wall Agreements, 4.
(b) Implied Grant, 7.
ic) Prescription, 8.

(d) Statutes, 8.
III. When a Party Wall Ceases to be

Such, 9.

IV. Rights, Duties and Liabilities of

Adjoining Owners, 10.
(a) General Statement, 10.
b) Erection and Use, 11.
(c) Alteration, II.
(d) Repair, 13.

(e) Contribution, 13.
V. Remedies, 16.
VI. Practice and Procedure, 17.

I DEFINITION.—A party-wall, in the ordinary meaning of the term, is a wall between two adjoining owners, built at common expense and used for common advantage. The term, however, may be used in four different senses : First, a wall of which the two adjoining owners are tenants in common ;2 second, a wall divided longitudinally into two strips, one belonging to each of the neighboring owners ;3 third, a wall which belongs entirely to one of the adjoining owners, but is subject to an easement or right in the other to have it maintained as a dividing wall between the two tenements ;4 fourth, a wall divided longitudinally into two

ment that might be inade. Matter of Cisco, 4 Sandf. (N. Y.) 480; Regina v. Pennie, 108 N. Y. 365.

Copp, i7 Ont. Reps. (Can.) 738; Cubitt 1. Abb. L. Dict. 252; Hiatt v. Morris, v. Porter, 8 Barn. & C. 257; Wiltshire 10 Ohio St. 523; Koeing v. Haddix, 21 v. Sidford, 8 Barn. & C. 259; Watson Ill. App. 53; Hammann v. Jordan, 9 v. Gray, 14 Ch. Div. 192; Jones 0 N. Y. Supp. 423

Read, 10 Is. R. C. L. 315; Standard One of two adjoining owners of land Band of B. S. A. v. Stokes, 9 Ch. D. 68; in a city, who erects a wall over the 47 L. J. Ch. 554; 38 L. T. 672; 26 W. boundary line under the ordinances of R. 492. the city respecting party-walls, cannot 3. In this case the owners are not tenclaim the benefit of such wall as a par- ants in common, even if the wall was ty-wall, unless it be built of the width erected at their joint expense; Matts v. prescribed by the ordinance, and also Hawkins, 5 Taunt. 20; but where there be solid and free from any openings. has been a common user of the wall Traute v. White (N. J.), 19 Atl. Rep. erected at the common expense, that, 196.

in the absence of any other evidence, is A dividing wall between two build sufficient evidence for a jury to find ings in the city of Philadelphia owned that the wall is held by the two parties by different parties, the foundation of as tenants in common; Cubitt v. Porter, which rest partly upon the ground of 8 Barn. & C. 257; Standard Bank v. each is a party-wall. It is immaterial Stokes, 29 Ch. D. 68. that the foundation is not equally laid 4. Rogers v. Sinsheimer. 50 N. Y. upon the lot of each party, and that the 646. wall itself, above the foundation, is The term is so used in the English wholly within the lot of one of the ad- Metropolitan Building Act. 18 & 19 V. joining owners. Western Nat. Banks ch. 122,8 3; Knight v. Pursell, 1 Ch. I D. App. 102 Pa. St. 171; Gordon v. Milne, 412. Such a wall may be a party-wall 10 Phila. (Pa.) 15. Compare Beaver v. for some part of its height, and above Nutter, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 345.

that height the separate property of one 2. Montgomery v. Masonic Hall, 70 of the adjoining owners; 'Weston v. Ga. 38; Brown v. Werner, 40 Md. 15; Arnold, 43 L. J. Ch. 123; 8 Ch. 1084; Orman v. Day, 5 Fla. 392; Sherred v. and in same way such a wall may be

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »