The applicants filed an appeal for a declaratory judgment to determine the defendants` right to keep billboards outside a party wall. The stop was recorded; Accused appeal and cross appeal plaintiff. “1. This wall must be and remain a party wall in every respect. [3-5] According to the analysis of the contract, it appears that the advertisement is not explicitly mentioned, but the defendants have the right to subordinate “any appropriate use of that wall” under the terms of the contract. The complainants assert that their right to keep the wall “visible” implies the right to prohibit advertising. Since the contractual conditions are clear and unequivocal, there is no need to declare the building rules. Herlihy Mid-Continent Co. v. Sanitary Dist. De Chicago, 390 III. 160.
If the word “sightly” is read in its proper context, it is quite clear that the complainants have the right to keep the wall in a safe and “visible” state to use the wall as the party wall. This includes prohibiting anything that interferes with the use of the wall to support the complainants` building, but not things that do not affect aid facilitation. The need to read contracts as a whole is a long-standing rule in Illinois. Street v. Chicago Wharfing – Storage Co., 157 Fig. 605. Since the treaty does not provide otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that the rule of several times applies, since in Illinois, the existing right at the time and place of the contract is part of each contract and the treaty must be interpreted in this way. Hindu incense Mfg. Co. v. MacKenzie, 403 Fig. 390.
In addition to the common walls, there are also the adjacent walls and walls of the land, the walls that are part of a single structure, the partitions between the adjacent units and those on the land of two or more owners. The traditional principle of the party wall requires that each owner own as much of a party wall as on his property. For the most part, each owner acquires ownership of half the wall, and each owner also provides relief to support the party wall. Typically, a party wall agreement requires owners to maintain their part of the wall consistently and harmoniously. Therefore, defendants should not be prevented from reaping economic benefits from their assets simply because they are being used in a manner that is not expected by the parties of origin, as long as the applicants` right of support and the right to use the wall as a party wall are not affected. “6…. The second part [predecessor of the defendant] has the right, subject to the conditions set out in it, to use that wall appropriately, which must not alter or reduce the current use by the First Party, or make the same inappropriate or uncertain use as a party wall…. Work under the Act should not cause “unnecessary inconvenience” to the adjacent owner. This was one of the themes of Gray v Elite Town Management (unreported) July 23, 2015. For this reason, the adjacent surveyor refused to authorize the work.
The court found that evaluators were not required to propose alternative support plans to avoid such “unnecessary inconvenience.” It was for the owner and his team to develop a new design. It remains to be seen whether this will be considered on appeal. The wall in question forms the east wall of the complainants` five-storey building and the west wall of the one-storey garage of the accused. These buildings are located at 317-25 West Randolph Street in Chicago.