The right of having one's land and the structures erected thereon supported by the land of a neighboring 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 con- dition; 90 U. S. 635; and it is an incident to the land in that condition; 19 Barb. 383. If any excavation cause damage whilst the soil remains in this condition, an action will lie, but in the absence of negligence in excavating, or prescription, or grant, in favor of the neighbor, no action will lie for injury occasioned to the latter if he has in- creased the lateral pressure by building on the land: 122 Mass. 207; 2 Thomp. & C. 277; 10 H. L. Cas. 333; 22 Mo. 566; 58 Mo. App. 586; 37 Vt. 99. A land-owner has a right to assume that the soil will be per- mitted to remain in its natural state, and for a violation of this right, an action will lie independently of the question of negli- gence; 2 Rolle, Abr. 565; 25 Vt. 465; 25 N. J. L. 362. But see 47 La. Ann. 814, where it was held that an adjoining land- owner was liable for weakening his neigh- bor's wall, by the construction of a build- ing 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 carefully stated by this eminent au- thor: "This right exists independently of grant or prescription, and is also an abso- lute right; so that, if his neighbor ex- cavates the adjoining land, and in conse- quence A's land falls, he may have an ac- tion, although A's excavation was not carelessly or unskilfully performed. This natural right does not extend to any build- ings A may place upon his land; and there- fore, if A builds his house upon the verge of his own land, he does not thereby ac- quire 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 mean- time such adjacent owner may excavate his own land for such purposes as he sees fit, provided he does not dig carelessly or recklessly; and if, in so doing, the adjacent 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 knowledge 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 addi- tional weight or structure that he may place thereon. If, therefore, a man erect a house upon his own land, so near the boundary line thereof as to be injured by the adjacent owner's excavating his 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 addi- tional weight, it would be damnum absque injuria, a loss for which the person so ex- cavating would not be responsible in dam- ages; " 2 Washb. R. P., 5th ed. 380. It is settled law that "the unquestion- able right of a land-owner to remove the earth from his own premises adjacent to another's building is subject to the qualifi- cation that he shall use ordinary care to cause no unnecessary damage to his neigh- bor's property in so doing. 110 Mo. 234; 25 Ν. Υ. 334; 2 Allen 131; 76 Ill. 240; and as it is put by another author: "In exer- cising his rights over his land, the owner is bound to use ordinary care and skill for the purpose of avoiding injury to his neigh- bor. 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,