LATERAL SUPPORT. The right of hav ing one's land and the structures erected thereon supported by the land of a neighbor ing proprietor.
Each of two adjoining land-owners is entitled to the support of the other's land. The right of lateral support exists only with respect to the soil in its natural condition ; Northern Transp. Co. v. Chicago, 99 U. S. 635, 25 L. Ed. 336 ; and it is an incident to the land in that condition; Farrand v. Marshall, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 383. If any ex cavation cause damage whilst the soil re mains in this condition, an action will lie, but in the absence of negligence in excavat ing, or prescription, or grant, in favor of the neighbor, no action will lie for injury occa sioned to the latter if he has increased the lateral pressure by building on the land ; Gilmore v. Driscoll, 122 Mass. 207, 23 Am. Rep. 312; 10 H. L. Cas. 333; Eads v. Gains, 58 Mo. App. 586 ; Beard v. Murphy, 37 Vt. 99, 86 Am. Dec. 693. A land-owner has a right to assume that the soil will be permitted to remain in its natural state, and for a viola tion of this right, an action will lie inde pendently of the question of negligence ; 2 Rolle, Abr. 565 ; Richardson v. R. Co., 25 Vt. 465, 60 Am. Dec. 283; McGuire v. Grant, 25 N. J. L. 362, 67 Am. Dec. 49. But see Bon quois v. Monteleone, 47 La. Ann. 814, 17 South. 305, where it was held that an ad joining landowner was liable for weakening his neighbor's wall, by the construction of a building on his own land.
A person's right to the support of the land immediately around his house is not so much an easement, as it has been called, as it is the ordinary right of enjoyment of property. Professor Washburn character izes the right as "of a nature somewhat akin to the easement of light." The doctrine of lateral support has been thus stated by this eminent author (2 Real Pr. 380) : "This right exists independently of grant or prescription, and is also an abso Hite right; so that, if his neighbor excavates the adjoining land, and in consequence A's land falls, he may have an action, although A's excavation was not carelessly or unskil fully performed. This natural right does not extend to any buildings A may place upon his land ; and therefore, if A builds his house upon the verge of his own land, he does not thereby acquire the right to have it derive its support from the land adjoining it until it shall have stood and had the advantage of such support for twenty years.
In the meantime such` adjacent owner may excavate his own land for such purposes as he sees fit, provided he does not dig careless ly or recklessly; and if, in so doing, the ad jacent earth gives way, and the house falls by reason of the additional weight thereby placed upon the natural soil, the owner of the house is without remedy. It was his own' folly to place it there. But if it shall have stood for twenty years with the knowl edge of the adjacent proprietor, it acquires the easement of a support in the adjacent soil. . . But this right of a land-owner to support his land against that of the adjacent owner does not, as before stated, extend to the support of any additional weight or structure that he may place there on. If, therefore, a man erect a house upon his own land, so near the boundary line thereof as to be injured the adjacent own er's excavating land in a proper manner, and so as not to have caused the soil of the adjacent parcel to fall if it had not been loaded with an additional weight, it would be damnum absque drk furia,—a loss for which the person so excavating would not be re sponsible in damages." "The unquestionable right of a land-owner to remove the earth from his own premises adjacent to another's building is subject to the qualification that he shall use ordinary care to cause •no unnecessary damage to his neighbor's property in so doing." Larson v. R. Co., 110 Mo. 234, 19 S. W. 416, 16 L. R. A. 330, 33 Am. St. Rep. 439; Austin v. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 334 ; Foley v. Wyeth, 2 Allen (Mass.) 131, 79 Am. Dec. 771; City of Quin cy v. Jones, 7l Ill. 240, 20 Am. Rep. 243. In exercising his rights over his land, the owner is bound to use ordinary care and skill for the purpose of avoiding injury to his neighbor. Thus, while, as a general rule, he is not bound to continue the support his land gives to a structure upon, or other artificial arrangement of, adjoining land, and is, therefore, not liable for the, natural conse quences of his withdrawing this support, yet in doing so, he must act with such care and caution that (as nearly as by reasonable exertion it is possible to secure such a re suit) his neighbor shall suffer no more in jury than would have accrued if the struc ture had been put where it is without ever having had the support of his laud.