King v. Miller
George W. King v. Jac. W. Miller, on bill for Injunction
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
The Chancellor.
The owner of a lot has the election to build on it as he pleases. The owner of the adjoining lot has the same right. If the one who builds first chooses to build on the line, the adjoining owner has no means of preventing it; and has no means of preventing the continuance of the building on the line. Where one has a right to put up a building on the spot where he erects it, and to continue it there, and the adjoining owner can do nothing to prevent its erection on that spot, and can do nothing to prevent its remaining there, it is simply absurd to say, that the latter can by lapse of time lose his right to build up to his line. The loss of a right by lapse of time, from an act done and continued by another, can only he in cases where the party against whom the time is running has soma means of preventing the act or its continuance. Where he has no such means, he is no default, and can, therefore, lose no right. And a person by doing and continuing an act on his property which he has a right to do, and which another has no means of preventing, can acquire no right injurious to the property of that other.
Motion denied.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.