Does a landlord have any right to tear down the supporting wall of his building?

wall of his building; and the defendant had no right to remove any portion of the wall of the four-story building, or any of its supports, so as to drive the plaintiff from his store. A landlord, in such a case, would have no more right to take down the supporting wall than he would to tear down the demised building itself. The contention of the landlord, here, is against both reason and justice, and has no support in any precedent or any principle of law. The rights of the plaintiff do not depend upon [142 N.Y. 269]the technical doctrine of eviction. The defendant was a trespasser and a wrongdoer, and is just as responsible for the consequences of his acts as he would have been if he had removed the roof from the building, or entered the plaintiff's store, and physically expelled him. The responsibility of the defendant in no way depends upon his knowledge that the wall of the seven-story building was necessary to the support of the wall of the four-story building. He was bound to know what he was about, and cannot shield himself against a trespass because he did not foresee the consequences of his acts, or even because he did not know that he was trespassing. If he supposed that he was entitled to take down the wall of the seven-story building, to the support of which plaintiff was entitled for his store, he was mistaken, and is responsible for the consequences of his mistake. When he learned that the wall of the four-story building could not stand without the support of the wall of the seven-story building, he was bound to take the consequences of his acts, or to rebuild that wall, and thus support the wall of the four-story building. The defendant is not protected from responsibility, in this case, because, after he had removed the wall of the seven-story building down to the third story of the four-story building, thus rendering the latter dangerous and insecure, the fire department caused it to be removed. It was his act that brought on the proceeding by the fire department. He created the danger which invoked its action. It was due to his act, solely, that the building was finally taken down, and the plaintiff ousted, and deprived of his lease. While no authority is needed for a conclusion depending on such obvious principles of right and justice, the case of Richards v. Rose, 9 Exch. 218, may be cited as having some bearing. There it was held that where several houses belonging to the same owner are built together, so that each requires the mutual support of the neighboring house, and the owner parts with one of the houses, the right to such mutual support is not thereby lost, the legal presumption being that the owner reserves to himself such right, and at the same time grants to [142 N.Y. 270]the new owner an equal right; and, consequently, if the owner parts with several of the houses at different times, the possessors still enjoy the right to mutual support, the right being wholly independent of the question of the priority of their titles.