Spaulding et. al. vs.

Grundy
31 Ky. L. Rptr. 951, 27 September 1907
104 S.W. 293
Topic: Party Walls; Rights and Liabilities of Adjoining Owners

FACTS:

1. S.B. and C.C. Spaulding are owners of a lot with a store building in the city of Lebanon while
A.J. Grundy owns the adjoining lots. Both lots were formerly owned by Ben Spalding and
were acquired by Spaulding and Grundy through various conveyances.
2. For a considerable time, the buildings on both lots extended back the same distances from
Main street; the dividing wall between them recognized as a joint or partnership wall.
3. Afterwards, the Spauldings vendors increased the depth of their store building by extending
the division wall on the line between the lots, and erected a wall two stories high. The
extension was made at the vendors own expense with the expectation, belief and assurance
that, when Grundy and his vendors should extend their building and use the wall erected by
the Spauldings vendor for the purpose of building on or to it, they would contribute their
share of the expense of erecting it, or pay to the Spauldings of the value of the wall.
4. Grundy acquired the title to his lot in 1881, and since then at various times has extended the
store building on his lot, until the storeroom has reached the end of the wall erected by
Spauldings vendors, and is using the wall as the eastern wall of his building.
5. Grundy refuses to contribute anything to the expense of erecting the wall made by
Spauldings vendors, or pay any part of the value of the wall used by him; Spaulding brought
this action seeking to recover of the value of the wall. A demurrer was sustained, and
judgement was entered dismissing it.

ISSUE: Whether or not a party who uses for his own convenience and benefit an adjoining wall
erected by another person, be required to contribute or his fair proportion of the cost thereof?

HELD: Yes, judgment reversed wit directions to proceed in conformity with opinion.

RATIO:
1. Generally, party walls are erected under an agreement as to their use, and in many states
regulated by statute. However, there is authority founded in reason and justice that requires
a person who uses a party wall, in the absence of any agreement or contract, to contribute his
fair proportion of the cost thereof to the person erecting the wall, or to pay a reasonable price
for the use of the wall.
2. The measure of relief, however, is not the cost of the additions to the wall, but the moiety of
the value of the additions at the time they were actually used by the other party.
3. Finally, the Court was of the opinion that a person who uses a wall erected on the dividing
line by the owner of the adjacent lot should pay a reasonable and fair price for the use thereof,
estimated as of the time when the user takes place. Regardless whether his vendor was a
party to the erection of the wall, and made no agreement, express or implied, concerning it.