Story Case

Mr. Leon Holden built a skyscraper covering his entire corner lot on Wabash avenue, in Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Holden's building was valuable to shopkeepers, because of its great window area on two streets. The city of Chicago decided to close the side street from which Mr. Holden's building received the most light, and erect in the site of this street a twenty-story municipal lodging house. Mr. Holden filed a bill to enjoin the city from erecting the building. He proved that his building had stood for over twenty years, receiving its light and air over this street, and that his property would be decreased in value at least 50 per cent by the contemplated erection. He asked the court to decide that he had easement to light and air over this street by reason of his long continued and uninterrupted use. Will the court grant this request?

Ruling Court Case. Parker Vs. Foote, Vol. 19 Wendell Reports, Page 309

Foote was the owner of two adjacent lots situated in the village of Clinton. He sold one of them to one Stebbins, who, in the same year, erected a dwelling thereon, on a line with the other lot, with windows in it overlooking the other property. Foote, in the same year, built an addition to a house which stood on the lot he retained, leaving a space of about sixteen feet between the house erected by Stebbins and the addition put up by himself. This space was subsequently, and for twenty years following, occupied by Foote as an alley. After this time he erected a small store in the alley, filling up the whole space between the two houses, and consequently excluding the light from the house erected by Stebbins. At the time of the erection of this store, Parker was owner of the lot originally owned by Stebbins. He now sues Foote for interfering with his right to light. He claims that twenty years of uninterrupted use of the light by the owners of the lot in question gave a perpetual right to such light.

Mr. Justice Bronson said: "The doctrine of presumption of a right by grant, or otherwise, as applied to the windows of one person overlooking the land of another, so that by an uninterrupted enjoyment for twenty years the owner acquires a right of action against his neighbor for stopping the lights by the erection of a building upon his own land, forms no part of our law; such a rule is not adapted to the circumstances or existing state of things in this country." Judgment was given for Foote.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

In England it is held that a person may acquire by prescription, that is, by twenty years' use, the right to light over his neighbor's property, if he has been permitted to use the light over the property for the prescriptive period. But this rule has never been adopted in this country, because it is not suited to the needs and conditions of a rapidly growing country. Thus, a person may enjoy freely the light over another's property for any period of time in this country, and the owner of the land may then so build as to cut off the light, and the other person has no cause for complaint.

In the Story Case, Mr. Holden will get no relief even though the greatest hardship will result to him.