Smoot v. Heyl
227 U.S. 518 (1913)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Smoot v. Heyl, 227 U.S. 518 (1913)

Smoot v. Heyl

No. 86

Argued December 13, 16, 1912

Decided February 24, 1913

227 U.S. 518

Syllabus

Under § 233 of the Code of the District of Columbia, this Court has jurisdiction of an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia where the validity of a regulation promulgated by the Commissioners under an act of Congress is drawn in question, irrespective of the conclusion reached by the court below.

The fundamental idea of a party wall is that of mutual benefit.

In the absence of plain error, this Court will accept the decision of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia determining whether a particular structure comes within the definition of a party wall under the building regulations promulgated by the Commissioners.

In this case, this Court affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals that the wall of a bay-window which can serve no mutual purpose is not a party wall within the meaning of the building regulations in force in the District of Columbia.

34 App.D.C. 480 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this Court to review judgments of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia under § 250 of the Judicial Code of 1911 and also the construction of the Act of 1878 authorizing the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to make building regulations and the determination of what is a party wall under such regulations, are stated in the opinion.

Page 227 U. S. 520

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.