While the American Construction Company was excavating a corner lot in New York City for a large building, the excavation, together with the heavy pavement adjoining, and the structure of the Metropolitan Elevated Company, caused a serious depression in the street, compelling its abandonment during a period of two months, pending the repair of both the street and the elevated structure. For this loss the city attempted to collect from the American Construction Company. It was shown at the trial of the case, that the depression in the street was caused by the excavation in the lot, together with the heavy street pavement and the elevated railway. Can the city recover?

Ruling Court Case. Lasala Vs. Holbrook, Volume 4, Paige Chancery, Page 169

In this case it appears that Lassala was the owner of a lot in New York City on which Christ's Church stands - having been erected thirty-eight years before the bringing of this suit. Holbrook owned an adjoining lot, extending within six feet of the church. He commenced a building to cover his entire lot and to be six stories in height. In order to get a good foundation for the building, he contemplated an excavation sixteen feet in depth, which was ten feet below the foundation of the church. Lasala began this action to restrain the completion of this excavation, because of the probable result to the church.

Holbrook claimed that Lasala was entitled to lateral support only for his land in its natural condition.

Decision: The owner of land has a natural right to the use of it, in the situation in which it was placed by nature, surrounded, and protected by the soil of the adjacent lots. But one has a right to dig upon his own land, if necessary to its convenient or beneficial use, when it can be done without injury to adjacent lots in their natural state, and this right cannot be taken away by the erection of buildings on neighboring soil whose weight causes the earth to fall into the excavation.

As the court said: "I may sustain an action against a man who digs a pit on his own land so near my lot that my land falls into the pit, but my neighbor has the right to dig upon his own land, if necessary to its convenient or beneficial use, when it can be done without injury to my land in its natural state.

I cannot, therefore, deprive him of this right by erecting a building on my lot, the weight of which will cause my land to fall into the pit which he may dig in the proper and legitimate exercise of his previous right to improve his lot." Judgment was given for Holbrook.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

It has been pointed out that every owner of land is entitled to the support of adjacent land, provided his land is in its natural condition. But if he has made excavations, or if he has placed buildings on his own land, the property is no longer in its natural condition, and an adjacent land owner may excavate his land, provided he is not negligent in doing so, and even if the excavations would have caused the damage, had the other land been in its natural condition.

In the Story Case, it appeared that the falling in of the land beneath the street was not due to the carelessness of the American Construction Company. Reasonable care was taken. Enough support was provided to prevent sinking, if the adjoining street had been in its natural condition. Nothing more can be demanded. Since it was not in its natural condition, and since the construction company was not careless, there can be no recovery against it.