The principle underlying this rule is that "if a man in the exercise of his own rights of property do damage to his neighbor, he 'is liable if it might have been avoided by the use of reasonable care ;" Charless v. Rankin, 22 Mo. 573, 66 Am. Dec. 642 ; Leaven worth Lodge v. Byers, 54 Kan. 323, 38 pat 261. In the absence of a statutory rule it is said that "the care required of a party so excavating is that of a man of ordinary pru dence in the circumstances of the particular situation. . . . The particular circum stances so largely shape and indicate the duty that any attempt to reduce the rule to greater certainty would probably tend to impede rather than to promote the adminis tration of justice;" Larson v. Ry. Co., 110 Mo. 234, 19 S. W. 416, 16 L. R. A. 330, 33 S111. St. Rep. 439. It has been held that prior notice to the neighbor whose property may be endangered by the excavation is an essential part of the ordinary care referred. to; Schultz v. Byers, 53 N. J. L. 442, 22 Ali. 514, 13 L. R. A. 569, 26 Am. St. Rep. 435. In this case there was so emphatic a dissent that, standing alone, it could hardly be considered sufficient authority for the prop osition. On this point it is said that "one who digs away land which affords support to an adjoining house ought to give the owner reasonable notice of his intention to do so, and he must allow the latter all rea sonable facilities for obtaining artificial sup port, including a temporary privilege of shoring up the house by supports based upon the former owner's land ;" 2 Shearm. & Redf. Neg., 4th ed. § 701. A text writer says: "Thus the authorities are agreed that one who proposes to excavate, or make other al terations or improvements upon his own land, which may endanger the land or house of his neighbor, is bound to give the latter reasonable notice of what he proposes to do, to enable him to take, the necessary measures for the preservation of his •own property. But, after giving such notice, he is bound only to reasonable and ordinary care in the prosecution of the work." 1 Thomp. Neg. 276. In many cases it is held that after notice from the owner who pro poses to excavate, it is the duty of his neigh bor to shore up his own building; Shafer v. Wilson, 44 Md. 268 ; Lasala v. Holbrook, Paige (N. Y.) 169, 25 Am. Dec. 524; 9 B. & 0. 725. And where a neighbor has no right to support by grant or by prescription, it is said that he must shore up his own house; Shrieve v. Stokes, 8 B. Monr. (Ky.) 453, 48 Am. Dec. 401; but there is no obligation on the part of the owner of a building about to be removed to shore up the other blaild ings; Goddard, Easem., Bennett's ed. 43.
The owner of land cannot be' deprived of his right to excavate MS own' land by the action of his neighbor in building at or near the boundary line,' and if he conduct his operations with due care, and no right by grant or prescription has been acquired by his neighbor, he is not liable, even though the building of the latter be ruined ; 3 B. & Ad. 871; City of Quincy v. Jones, 76 Ill. 237, 20 Am. Rep. 243; Greenleaf v. Francis, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 117; Radcliff's Ex'rs v. Brook lyn, 4 N. Y. 201, 53 Am. Dec. 357.
In the case of a party wall (q. v.) the joint owners of it have no easement of recipro cal support from each other's buildings, and if one proposes to remove the building, and injury to his neighbor is liable to result from it, he must notify him of his intention that he may look to his own protection, at the same time using reasonable care and pre caution to protect the neighbor, and if this is done, and still injury results, no action will lie; Clemens v. Speed, 93 Ky. 284, 19 S. W. 660, 19 L. R. A. 240.
With respect to a right by prescription for the support of buildings, there is a difference between the tendency of judicial opinion in England and the United States. In the former country the tendency, "as in the case of all rights affecting real estate, is strongly in favor of the recognition of this right as acquired by prescription ;" L. R. 6 App. Cas. 740 ; 19 Ch. Div. 281. See 9 H. L. Cas. 503. The American doctrine, after some fluctuation, is now considered as settled that an easement for the support of a building cannot be acquired by pre scription; Sullivan v. Zeiner, 98 Cal. 346, 33
Pac. 209, 20 L. R. A. 730; Handlan v. Mc Manus, 42 Mo. App. 551 (overruling Cassel berry v. Ames, 13 Mo. App. 575) ; Mitchell v. Rome, 49 Ga. 19, 15 Am. Rep. 669 ; Richart v. Scott, 7 Watts (Pa.) 460, 32 Am. Dec. 779; Tunstall v. Christian, 80 Va. 1, 56 Am. Rep. 581 (overruling Stevenson v. Wallace, 27 Gratt. [Va.] 77); Thurston v. Hancock, 12 Mass. 230, 7 Am. Dec. 57. See Sullivan v. Zeiner, 98 Cal. 346, 33 Pac. 209, 20 L. IL A. 730, and note.
The action for a wrong is not for the exca vation ; the land owner does not sustain dam ages until there is an actual subsidence of his soil; Kansas City N. W. R. Co. v.. Schwake, 70 Kan. 141, 78 Pac. 431, 68 L. R. A. 673, 3 Ann. Cas. 118 ; 11 App. Cas. 127, where the question is exhaustively discussed. To the same effect Schultz v. Bower, 57 Minn. 493, 59 N. W. 631, 47 Am. St. Rep. 630; Smith v. City of Seattle, 18 Wash. 484, 51 Pac. 1057, 63 Am. St. Rep. 910.
The measure of damages in actions for removing the lateral support of another's land is the amount required to restore the property to its former condition with as good means of lateral support, and special damages must be specially pleaded ; Stim mel v. Brown, 7 Houst. (Del.) 219, 30 Atl. 996; or the diminution of the value of the land by falling, caving, or washing, as the natural result of the excavation ; McGuire v. Grant, 25 N. J. L. 356, 67 Am. Dec. 49 ; Schultz v. Bower, 64 Minn. 123, 66 N. W. 139. See Moellering v. Evans, 121 Ind. 195, 22 N. E. 989, 6 L. R. A. 449.
The right of lateral support may be assert as well against a municipal corporation's making excavations in changing the grade of a street as against private individuals ; Stearns v. City of Richmond, 88 Va. 992, 14 S. E. 847, 29 Am. St. Rep. 758. But see Jencks v. Kenny, 19 N. Y. .Supp. 243. So where a city built a sewer in a public street opposite land, under which and the street was a stratum of silt and quicksand which flowed into the sewer trench so that a build ing on the land was damaged, the city was held liable; Cabot v. Kingman, 166 Mass. 403, 44 N. E. 344, 33 L. R. A. 45, three judg es dissenting on the authority of 4 L. R. Exch. 244, in which it was held that there is no right of recovery for damages occa sioned by the sinking in of land, and that this doctrine extended to a quicksand flow ing so freely as to be raised by a pump. The damage to an adjoining owner caused by the construction of a sewer below the level of the foundation of his building was held to be damnton absque injuria, if the lot in its natural state would not have settled and where the owner knew there was danger to his building in time to prop and protect it; Johnson v. St. Louis, 172 Fed. 31, 96 C. C. A. 617, 18 Ann. Cas. 949 ; City of Platts mouth v. Boeck, 32 Neb. 297, 49 N. W. 167 ; contra, Ladd v. Philadelphia, 171 Pa. 485, 33 Atl. 62.
No action lies where natural gas was ab stracted ; Hague v. Wheeler, 157 Pa. 324, 27 Atl. 714, 22 L. R. A. 141, 37 Am. St. Rep. 736; or petroleum; Kelley v. Oil Co., 57 Ohio St. 317, 49 N. E. 399, 39 L. R. A. 765, 63 Am. St. Rep. 721; or where defendant, in pumping brine from his own mine, pumped plaintiff's salt dissolved by water in plaintiffs mine ; [1906] 2 K. B. 822 ; contra, of the withdraw al of pitch ; [1899] A. C. 594 (in Trinidad).
Where a house is injured as an indirect effect of the improper working of mines, the right of action arises at the time the mis chief is felt, and the statute of limitations runs from that time ; 9 H. L. Cas. 503.
For a collection of cases depending on par ticular facts and illustrating the right of lateral support, see Graves v. Mattison, 67 Vt. 630, 32 'Atl. 498.
In California it is made unlawful by stat ute for a land-owner to remove the lateral support of adjoining land without taking reasonable precautions to support it; Cal. Civ. Codel 832.
See, generally, 13 L. R. A. 569, note; EASEMENT ; PRESCRIPTION.