Sorensen v. J. H. Lawrence Co.

Delaplaine, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit was instituted in the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City to obtain a declaratory decree defining the rights of complainants and defendant under a party wall agreement, to restrain defendant from increasing the height of the existing one-story party wall, to compel defendant to tear down any construction already started, and to restore the wall to its original condition. Complainants are Margaret J. Sorensen, owner of the property situated at 2600% Huntington Avenue, and Christian P. Sorensen and J. Norris Fiol, copartners trading as Sorensen & Fiol, tenants of the property, who ⁵⁴⁸ joined in the suit on account of their right of occupancy. Defendant is J. H. Lawrence Company, a Maryland cor-poration.

The bill of complaint filed July 29, 1949, alleges: (1) that, under a written agreement entered into by former owners of Mrs. Sorensen’s property with defendant, the one-story party wall, which the former owners had erected in 1926, could not be increased in height by defendant; (2) that while Mrs. Sorensen’s property is two stories in height, the height of the party wall had been only one story throughout the entire period from the time it was erected in 1926 until July, 1949, when defendant started to erect an additional story on its building at 2600 Huntington Avenue, using the party wall as a. supporting wall; and (8) that Mrs. Sorensen immediately notified defendant that its intended use of the party' wall was improper and unjustified and in violation of her rights, and requested defendant to restore the wall to its former condition; but, in spite of her protests, defendant indicated its intention to proceed to increase the height of the wall. Defendant, in its answer filed August 2, alleged that its building is beifig erected with the approval of the Buildings Engineer of Baltimore City, and that it does not violate in any way any contractual or property rights of complainants. Defendant further alleged that if this case is permitted to remain untried until the fall term of Court, defendant will be continuing the work of construction with the risk that the Court may adjudicate the case in favor of complainants. Defendant then charged