From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bernheimer v. Kilpatrick

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 2, 1891
127 N.Y. 672 (N.Y. 1891)

Summary

In Bernheimer v. Kilpatrick (53 Hun 316, 319, affd. 127 N.Y. 672) it is stated: "It is a duty imposed upon the adjoining builder to so protect the adjoining wall, if he goes more than 10 feet below the level of the curb, that such wall shall not be injured by reason of the structure which he has put in the excavation after it is made, because the provision of the law is that the foundation of adjoining house must be supported in such manner that it shall remain as stable as before the excavations were commenced."

Summary of this case from May v. 229 Development Corp.

Opinion

Argued April 29, 1891

Decided June 2, 1891

William F. MacRae for appellant.

Matthew Hale for respondents.


Agree to affirm on opinion below.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Bernheimer v. Kilpatrick

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 2, 1891
127 N.Y. 672 (N.Y. 1891)

In Bernheimer v. Kilpatrick (53 Hun 316, 319, affd. 127 N.Y. 672) it is stated: "It is a duty imposed upon the adjoining builder to so protect the adjoining wall, if he goes more than 10 feet below the level of the curb, that such wall shall not be injured by reason of the structure which he has put in the excavation after it is made, because the provision of the law is that the foundation of adjoining house must be supported in such manner that it shall remain as stable as before the excavations were commenced."

Summary of this case from May v. 229 Development Corp.
Case details for

Bernheimer v. Kilpatrick

Case Details

Full title:ADELE BERNHEIMER et al., Respondents, v . THOMAS KILPATRICK, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 2, 1891

Citations

127 N.Y. 672 (N.Y. 1891)
38 N.Y. St. Rptr. 1016

Citing Cases

May v. 229 Development Corp.

The plaintiff's witness, Mr. Baker, an engineer who qualified as an expert of several years' experience in…

Fagan v. Pathe Industries

Defendants Pathe and Diesel assert that they cannot be held liable by reason of any excavation in violation…