[blocks in formation]

facts, or the application of principles which have been laid down in cases of more or less similar kind.

The omission of the plaintiffs' predecessor in title to establish his right to the fishery before the Land Commission does not prejudice their case. See Kenoa v. Meek, 6 Hawaiian, 63. That commission was established to determine the title to lands as against the Hawaiian Government. In practice it treated

. the fisheries as not within its jurisdiction, and it would seem to have been right in its view. See Akeni v. Wong Ka Mau, 5 Hawaiian, 91.

Judgment reversed.





Nos. 89, 90, 439. Argued December 4, 5, 1905.-Decided January 8, 1906.

An owner of two adjoining parcels obtained on one of them a building loan

and erected an apartment house so near the line of the property mortgaged that ten feet of his adjoining parcel was absolutely necessary for properly conducting the apartment. During the erection of the building, and after it was evident that such ten feet adjoining was essential thereto, he obtained money for its completion on a second mortgage; subsequently he conveyed both parcels subject to the two mortgages on the parcel built on and also to a separate mortgage on the adjoining vacant parcel. The mortgages conveyed the property, together with the improvements, ways, easements, rights, privileges and appurtenances

appertaining thereto. On foreclosure of the mortgages held, that: Although an easement for light and air may not have been created by im

plication, still, under the wording of the conveyances and the circumstances of the case, an easement was created in favor of the mortgagees of the parcel built on against the original owner, and also against his grantee who took with notice, in the ten-foot strip adjoining the parcel on which the building was erected..

VOL. CC-17

Statement of the Case.

200 U.S.

It was not necessary that both parcels should be sold as an entirety, but, adequate proportionate protection as to the easement being provided for the mortgagee of the vacant plot, the plot with the building should be sold together with the easement on the ten feet adjoining as one parcel, and the vacant parcel subject to the easement, as another parcel, separately.

THESE are appeals from a decree of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, affirming a decree of the Supreme Court of the District. The bill in the original case was filed by Grayson and others against Wood, Talbott, Duke and others, for the appointment of a receiver for certain property situated in Washington, known as the Victoria Flats; also praying an injunction to restrain the sale of the property by the trustees of the first mortgage; to have an adjudication of the right of an easement alleged to be appurtenant to the property, and for the sale of the Victoria Flats and certain property adjacent thereto, for the marshalling of incumbrances and for general relief. The facts necessary to an adjudication of the case, as we view it, being principally those found in the Court of Appeals, are as follows: Mrs. Alice S. Hill was the owner of lots 1 and 2 in block forty-five of Hill's subdivision, University Park, city of Washington. A diagram of these lots is herewith given.


These lots fronted 150 feet (75 feet each) on Fourteenth street, and 190 feet on Welling Place (now Douglas street). On January 13, 1897, Mrs. Hill conveyed these lots to Nicholas T. Haller. Haller intended to erect an apartment house, which was subsequently placed thereon, and became known as the Victoria Flats. To enable him to build this structure, Haller negotiated a loan of $75,000, and, on January 22, 1897, executed a deed of trust of that date to B. H. Warner and Louis D. Wine, as trustees, hereinafter called the Warner trust, describing in the deed the north 120 feet of the two lots and running westwardly to the depth of 124 feet, as shown on the plat. At the same time Haller executed a deed of trust to McReynolds and Meriweather, as trustees, hereinafter known as the McReynolds trust, upon the remaining portion of said lots 1 and 2, to

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

secure his notes to the amount of $12,315. There were no improvements on the lots 1 and 2 at the time of making these deeds of trust. Thereafter Haller erected the apartment house on the portions of lots 1 and 2, described in the deed of trust to Warner. In the erection of the building Haller had become indebted to mechanics and materialmen in the sum of $30,087.65 and in the further sum of $10,350 for borrowed money. To avoid mechanics' liens on the property and to secure the borrowed money, a second deed of trust was placed on the property by the same description contained in the Warner deed, Grayson and Heald being the trustees named therein, herein

[blocks in formation]

after known as the Grayson trust, and bears date December 20, 1897. These deeds of trust were duly recorded. When the Grayson trust was executed and delivered the building had been erected by Haller, the mortgagor. The building contained, upon the south and west sides, in connection with which an easement is said to arise, a large number of doors, windows and porches, the porches encroaching over the line of the property deeded n the McReynolds trust four feet and nine inches, and it is averred in the bill and not denied in the answers that the areaways encroach five feet. There are thirty-six windows in the west wall, nineteen in the south wall, twenty-two doors in the west wall, five doors in the south wall, four cellar windows each in the west and south walls. It was stipulated in the case when it went back for final decree in the Supreme Court as follows:

“The areaways on the west and south sides mentioned by the witness, William J. McClure, consist of excavations from the surface of the ground downward, projecting into the cement walk, and protected by wooden platforms, on grade with and forming part of the said walk, and provided with interstices or openings aclmitting light to the windows below.

“On the south side of the building there is one doorway or entrance, and, on the west side, four doorways or entrances, opening out on the said cement walk, and not otherwise accessible from the exterior of said building.

“On the said west wall, projecting out on the said cement walk, there are three garbage chutes for collection of garbage from the building, and two openings into the cellar, through which the coal supply of the building is received, the said garbage chutes and coal cellars being accessible from the exterior only by means of the said cement walk."

In both deeds of trust, in addition to the conveyance of the parcels of ground described, there is the following language:

“Together with all and singular the improvements, ways, easements, rights, privileges and appurtenances to the same belonging, or in any wise appertaining, and all the estate,

[blocks in formation]

right, title, interest, and claim, either at law or in equity, or otherwise, however, of the parties of the first part, of, in, to or out of the said land and premises, to have and to hold the said land, premises and appurtenances unto and to the only use of the parties of the second part, the survivors of them, his heirs and assigns.”

A default having been macle in the payment of interest due upon the notes secured by the (leeds of trust, it was arranged that Warner and Wine were to collect the rents from the building, and afterwards Wood collected the rents of the building for a while. There is considerable testimony in the record tending to show an alleged combination on the part of Wood and Talbott, who had acquired the interest of Haller, to scale down the second or Grayson and Heald trust and to prevent the property being sold advantageously, all of which we deem unnecessary to consider in determining the rights of the parties, and shall not undertake to state the details concerning the same. It appears that Haller originally intended to place the building so as to leave ample space on the west and south, between the building and the lines of the lot as covered by the trust deeds, but being notified that a space of forty feet must be left on the east of the property and twenty feet on the north side, because of restrictions in the title of the property, the building was placed practically on the lines of the premises on the west and south, as described in the deeds of trust. The porches and areaways thus necessarily encroached on the adjoining property, as hereinbefore stated. In the view we take of the case it is important to state how Wood and Talbott acquired their interest in the property. In March, 1898, Wood obtained from Haller, in exchange for an equity of Wood's in another property, an undivided one-half interest in the flats property, and Haller conveyed the premises as described in the deed of trust to Warner, together with a ten-foot strip of ground on the south and west sides of the building (see plat), the deed being made for the same by Haller to one Duke, who executed a declaration (dated April 9, 1898), that he held the

« ForrigeFortsett »