This section is from the book "The Law Of Real Property and Other Interests In Land", by Herbert Thorn Dike Tiffany. Also available from Amazon: A Treatise on the Modern Law of Real Property and Other Interests in Land .
Not only may a building, by force by an agreement to that effect, belong to a person other than the owner of the land,99 but parts of a building may be owned by different persons in fee simple, as when an upper floor belongs to one person, and the lower to another,1 or separate rooms, or even parts of rooms, belong to different persons.2 A divided ownership of buildings not in fee simple, but for years, obviously occurs with great frequency by reason of the leasing of separate apartments in a building to different persons.
The owner of a part of a building, even though he has an estate in fee simple therein, cannot, it appears, demand that the owner of the other part keep the roof in repair in order that it may afford protection from the elements,2a this according with the view ordinarily expressed that the tenant under a lease of a part of a building cannot demand that the landlord make repairs on the roof.2b Likewise, the owner of an upper part of a building cannot demand that the owner of the lower part make repairs so as to furnish support to the
99. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Goodwin, 111 111. 273, 53 Am. Rep. 622; Walton v. Wray, 54 Iowa, 531; Howard v. Fessenden, 14 Allen (Mass.) 124; Ingalls v. St. Paul M. & M. Ry. Co, 39 Minn. 479, 12 Am. St. Rep. 676, 40 N. W. 524; Lowenber; v Bernd, 47 Mo. 29.7; Dame v. Dame, 38 N. H. 429, 75 Am. Dec. 195. See supra Sec. 271.
1. Co. Litt. 48b; Corbett v. Hill. L. R. 9 Eq. 671; Cheeseborough v. Green, 10 Conn. 318, 26 Am. Dec. 396; McConnell v. Kibbe, 33 111. 75; Ottumwa Lodge v. Lewis, 34 Iowa, 67, 11 Am. Rep. 135; Jackson v. Bruns, 129 Iowa, 616, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 510, 106 N. W. 1; Loring v. Bacon, 4 Mass. 575; Mott v. Palmer, 1 N. Y. 564.
2. Selby v. Greaves, L. R. 3 C. P. 594; Commonwealth v. Hersey. 144 Mass. 297, 11 N. E. 116; White v. White, 16 N. J. L. 202, 31 Am. Dec. 232.
2a. Tenant v. Goldwin, 6 Mod. 314, 1 Salk. 361, 2 Ld. Raym. 1091. 1 Wms. Saund. 321 note (1), to Pomfret v. Ricroft; Ottumwa Lodge v. Lewis, 34 Iowa, 67, 11 Am. Rep. 135; Loring v. Bacon. 4 Mass. 575. In Cheeseborough v. Green, 10 Conn. 318, 26 Am. Dec. 396, the upper owner is said to be under no such obligation at law, whatever might be the case in equity.
2b. 1 Tiffany, Landld. & Ten. pp. 624-628.
R. P.-60 upper.2c The upper owner has an easement of support, but this involves no obligation on the owner of the servient tenement as to the making of repairs.2d