Real  Estate   Record





AND BUILDERS' GUIDE.





Vol. XX.





NEW YORK, SATtFRDAY, AUGUST 18, 1877.





No. 492.





Published Weekly by

W>\^t %ml Estate liemrtr %B^Qmiwn.

TERMS.
ONE! YEAR, in advance.. ..$10.00.
Coraraunicafcions should be addressed fco

C.  W.  SWEET,
Nos. 345 AND .347 Broadway.





THE BRICK MANUPAGTCJRERS COMBINA¬
TION.
Au association, including, nearly ail the
leading brick manufacfcurers of the Hudson
River, has recently been formed with the avowed
purpose of controlling and dealing out tho
supply of brick, and, through a weekly meet¬
ing held in this city, deciding upon whafc fchey as¬
sume must be accepted as the regular market
rates, Expecfcations are of course'based upon fche
unanimous concurrence of all seUers in inandafces
of fche association as to the amoimt of the offering,
a strict adherence to the rates named, and the
tame submission of buyers. The programme
seems a very nice one, but we predict a fail¬
ure, Urst, through a weakness on the part of
sellers, and, second, through the power buyers
undoubtedly possess, if they wield it judiciously.
It is possible that certain manufacfcurers may
have the means at command which will enable
them to take the posifcion of "no sales untU they
get their price," but it is very doubtful if the
majority of their associates are in fche same posi¬
tion. Indeed, our information leads us to beUeve
that the production in a greafc many cases de¬
pends largely upon the turning of stock into
money rapidly, and that, if compeUed to carry
cargoes for even a week or two, owners thus sit¬
uated must break through the restrictions and
realize or give up hopes of further briclv making
for the season. Just now, too, there is a lull in
the consumpfcion of brick, our local dealers gener¬
ally are oifish and indifferent, and it is reported
that preparations for many fall jobs are delayed,
with every praspect of total suspension if the cost
of brick is to be increased. Buyers, in fact, show
many indications of bringing their operations
down to the close limit of absolute necessity, and
stoutly resisting higher prices, aud particularly
so when these come in dictatorial form. Combi¬
nafcions appear to be the last resort of a class of
people who fail to understand that the law of sup¬
ply and demand, as naturaUy developed, has
again became the sole pivot around which values
Uuctuate, and no matter what temporary success
may attend attempts to force other results, reac¬
tion is pretty sure to follow, and bring disaster
to aU who give support to what may be termed
Ulegitimate prices. This is not theory, but fact,
proven time and time again, during the past year
or two, on aU the leading staples and articles of
manufacture in the country, and even where le¬
galized and systematized speculation is carried
on daUy with "combinations" and "comers,"
part and parcel of the regular business, nothing
has proven successful -which. ignored the slow,
careful demand from astute consumers, orfaUed





to calculate closely the supply and probable out¬
let.

Only a few weeks ago the laborers at the kilns
and brick yards on Haverstraw Bay sfcruck for
higher wages, and were so riofcous in their de¬
mands that an armed force became necessary to
subdue them. Their "combination" fixed a scale
of wages, and attempted to enforce it by intimi¬
dation of employers and assault upon competing
workmen. WhUe the paraUel is not perfect
throughout, inasmuch as neither violence or law-
brealdng in any form are Ukely to result, the ac¬
tion of manufacturers in essential particulars is
simUar to that of their employees. It embodies
some of the worst features of trade-unionism in
the form of an attempt at positive dictation of
terms fchrough one-sided legislafcion, leaving the
other interested element, in fche form of buyers,
wifchoufc opfciou, if possible, and, fiu-fcher, seeks fco
control the private property of members to the
end that supplies may be manipulated in support
of the object iii view. As we have noted above,
manufacturers who have not moral courage to
carry on their own business independently, but
foUow the dictates of fche "combination," are
likely to be forced out of business, while those
who remain obtain whatever benefit may arise
fchrough reduced producfcion and increased monop¬
oly. The manner in which manufacfcurers seek
fco fcake the markefc in fcheir own hands seems fco
imjUy a want of faith and confidence in the man¬
agement by our i-eceivers and commission men.
This, however, is a matfcer for private considera¬
tion in the absence of direct faultfinding.





LEGAL DECISION.

Mr. John H. Sherwood, prior to the 1.5fch day of
December, 1873, was the owner of four first-class
dwelling-houses and lots, situate on the easterly
side of Pifth avenue, between Forty-fourth and
Forty-fifth streets, in the city of New York. Qn
that day he conveyed, by warranty deed, to
Mrs. Fannie Musgrave the third dweUing and lot
north of Fifty-fourth street, aforesaid. The lot
thus conveyed was thirty feet in width on Fiffch
avenue, and one hundred feefc in depfch, and fche
dweUing thereon was thirty feet wide and sixty
feet deep. The southern Une of the lot belonging
to Mrs. Musgrave was the centre of a party waU
between the buUdings of Mrs. Musgrave and
Sherwood. At the time of the sale to and pur¬
chase by Mrs. Musgrave, all four of the dwel¬
lings were fir.st-class private residences, and Mrs.
Musgrave and her husbahcl both positively testi¬
fied that Sherwood assured them they would so
remain and continue, which assurance was one of
the inducemenfcs which inUuenced fche purchase.

Two years after the sale, Mr. Sherwood re¬
modeled the interior of his two dwelUngs imme¬
diately south of that belongiug to Mrs. Musgrave,
and converted them into an establishment known
as a French flat or an apartment house. To this
alteration Mrs. Musgrave objected, though the
exterior of the building was not changed. He
also, at the same time, extended his buUding in the
rear to the depth of his lot, and erected his waU,
which was an extension of the old party waU,
several inches upon the property of Mrs. Mus¬
grave. Mr. Sherwood now purposes erecting two
additional stories upon his two dwellings, in which
erection, by adding to the height of the party
walL he really occupies and buUds upon the land
of Mj-s. Musgrave, and in so doing removes the
chimneys of her dweUing and otherwise inter¬
feres with her property. She thereupon appUes
for an injunction restraining Mr. Sherwood in
the enlargement and fm-ther alteration of the
biuldings, -which the Court has granted.





The Judge holds that the completion of the
buildings as dwelluigs, the erection of fche parfcy
wall befcween fchem in a finished sfcate, and the
positive declaration of Mr. Sherwood fchafc they
should remain first-class private residences, all
show fchat the party wall as it existed at the time
of the conveyance to Mrs. Musgrave, was to be
the completed wall between the two dweUings,
and there is nothing from which any agreement
or right to add to the party waU can be inferred,
but, on fche contrary, all acts and promises poLot
to an opposite one.

The Judge holds fchat this application involves
anofcher quesfcion. " Ifc was conceded on fche argu¬
ment that the title under which the defendant
holds his property forbids the erection thereon of
"a tenement house," and thus the point is pre¬
sented whether or not the conversion and change
made by him of his two houses into a French flat
or apartment house is a violation of his covenant.
The point is not free from difficulty, but reflec¬
tion has satisfied me fchat the pi-oposed erection is
wifchin both the spirit and fche lefcfcer of tlie expres¬
sion. The obvious object of such a provision was
to free the premises from the confusion and dis-
quiefc which musfc surround any buUding which
is the abode of several distinct families. That
the grantor infcended fco dedicate and preserve the
propei-fcy fco and for fche use of firsfc-cLass private
dwelling houses is obvious, and whUe it is con¬
ceded that the annoyance and discomfort arising
from fche occupafcion of defendant's structures
for the purpose designed would be somewhat less
than if fchey were fche abodes of fche poorer classes,
ifc is sfcUl manif esfc fchat the distinction is in degree
and not in kind. The bustle, confusion and want
of privacy which the grantor intended to guard
against would necessarily be present, and to thafc
exfcenfc at least his intention would be defeated.

It was strenulously urged by the defendant
fchat the expression "tenement house" must be
confined in meaning to the abodes of poor families
who, as tenants, occupy a single buUding. The
difficulty attending this definition is, that there is
no fixed standard by which povertj'' and wealfch
can be measured. How many doUars musfc an
individual have fco be enfcifcled fco be called rich,
and how few musfc he possess to bo regarded as
poor? WUl the name of the building change as
its occupants change ? Manifestly, it seems to
me, not. Some other definition than one which
shifts and changes wifch the famUies occupying
it must be sought for. Tho word "tenement,"
according to Bouvier (Bouvier's Law Dictionary,
vol. 2, page 583) in its larger sense "comprehends'
everything which may be holden, provided it be
of a permanent nature." According to the same
author it also signifies a " house or homestead,"
and as defined by Jacobs in his law dictionary,
which Bouvier quotes, "rooms let in a house."
The compound word "fcenement-house," musfc,
fcherefore, signify and mean a house wifch distinct,
tenements or homes, which separate and differenfc-
famUies or persons occupy as tenements. Not
merely a boarding house or a hotel—for in these
the occupancy is not one of tenancy, but that of
guests or boarders.

It was conceded upon the argument, that
whUst a common table and laundry is to be pro¬
vided in the structure of the defendant, for the
accommodation of its occupants if they wish to
use them, yet that the various copartments are
let and rented to them, they paying a sum in
money as the rent thereof. No reason occurs to
me why, UteraUy and truly, the building of the
defendant, which is to be occupied by tenants, in
name and in fact, is not clearly within the true
meaning and definition of a "tenement house."
The iu junction asked for must also for this reason
be granted."





MARKET    REVIEW.





REAL ESTATE MARKET.
The notable transacfcions afc the Exchange Sales¬
room were the sale of the vacanfc lofcs on fche north
side of Fiffcy-fourfch sfcreefc, fcogefcher in size 50x100,5.