Defendants erected a brick wall upon their lot in a manner that cut off light and air to the first floor window of the adjoining premises belonging ,to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs brought a bill in equity to compel removal of the wall. Upon finding that the wall was built merely to annoy plaintiffs, and that it was of no beneficial use to defendants, the chancellor ordered it removed. On appeal, held, reversed. Defendants being lawfully entitled to erect the wall upon their land, the court will not inquire into their motive for so doing. Cohen v. Perrino, (Pa. 1947) 50 A. (2d) 348.
RIGHTS IN LAND-LEGAL STATUS OF THE SPITE FENCE,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol46/iss5/23