Bland Lake Fishing and Hunting Club v. Fisher, 6166
Decision Date | 20 March 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 6166,6166 |
Citation | 311 S.W.2d 710 |
Parties | BLAND LAKE FISHING AND HUNTING CLUB, Appellant, v. Joe J. FISHER et al., Appellees. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
John Henry Minton, Hemphill, for appellant.
Reavely & Barber, Jasper, Tom Reavely, Austin, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment in the district court of San Augustine County, in which judgment the appellants were denied the writ of injunction prayed for by them and the rights of the parties were determined by findings and holdings of a declaratory nature.
The appellants, who are surviving stockholders of Bland Lake Fishing and Hunting Club, a defunct corporation, have included in their brief a detailed statement of the nature and result of the suit, which statement the appellees say in their brief is substantially correct. We therefore take the following statement from appellants' brief:
reply to said plea was a general denial.
'The case was tried before the regular judge of the 128th District on April 29, 1957, the regular judge of this district being a party to the suit and disqualified.
'On May 31, 1957, the court rendered judgment finding (a) that Mr. and Mrs. Bland executed the instrument dated September 22, 1926, and (b) that the defendant, Lula B. Fisher, is now the owner of the fee simple title to the 81.6 acres subject only to the rights and interest acquired by W. F. Hays, Trustee, in said instrument and (c) that the club has been composed of twenty members (until 1944), who were entitled to the beneficial rights of ownership of the grantee under said instrument, naming them, and by the terms of said instrument said twenty named persons acquired the profit a prendre, together with rights and use of the surface of said tract of the nature of an easement for the purpose of exercising the fishing and hunting privileges, (d) that said plaintiffs were not entitled under the instrument to enlarge the membership of said club so far as the rights and interest in the land is concerned, beyond the original owners and could not be made to include any one except the heirs, legal representatives or assigns of said original twenty owners, (e) that the successors in interest of the original twenty owners were found to be nineteen persons (including the defendant, Joe J. Fisher himself) as shown in the last paragraph of page 48 of the transcript, and (f) that by paragraph, 'fourth' of the instrument dated September 22, 1926, the grantee and the original owners of this right and privilege did not acquire the right to build individual houses on said tract of land, and that the refusal on the part of the fee owner, by and represented by defendants, to permit such construction was not wrongful but according to just ownership and rights and (g) with the nature and location of the structure had been fixed by the conduct of the parties and (h) that by paragraph 'sixth' the owners of the fishing and hunting profit were allowed such access as was reasonable and necessary to exercise their privilege and that by conduct in practice, a road on the West side of the lake had been used for such purpose and defined the location of this right.
By their seven points of error the appellants contend that the trial court erred in its judgment in holding that the rights acquired by W. F. Hays, Trustee, were restricted to twenty persons as members, and in holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to enlarge the membership of said club and in holding that the ownership could not be made to include anyone except the heirs, legal representatives or assigns of the original twenty owners, in restricting the ownership and rights to the successors in interest of the original twenty owners, in construing paragraph four of the instrument of September 22, 1926, to mean that the grantee in said instrument did not acquire the right to build individual houses on the land, in holding that the rights of ingress and egress were restricted to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marcus Cable Associates, L.P. v. Krohn
...what is reasonably necessary" to fairly enjoy the rights expressly granted. Coleman, 514 S.W.2d at 903; Bland Lake Fishing & Hunting Club v. Fisher, 311 S.W.2d 710, 715-16 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1958, no writ). Thus, if a particular purpose is not provided for in the grant, a use pursuing t......
-
West Beach Marina, Ltd. v. Erdeljac
...pipeline company's easement rights. Houston Pipe Line Co. v. Dwyer, 374 S.W.2d 662, 663, 666 (Tex.1964) (citing Bland Lake Fishing & Hunting Club v. Fisher, 311 S.W.2d 710, 716 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1958, no writ) ("The general rule is that where a grant of an easement is general as to the......
-
Seven Lakes Development Co. v. Maxson
...reaching its decision, the district court relied on Isherwood v. Salene, 61 Or. 572, 123 P. 49 (1912) and Bland Lake Fishing & Hunting Club v. Fisher, 311 S.W.2d 710 (Tex.App.1958). In Isherwood, 123 P. at 50, the Oregon court stated that the right to hunt ducks and fowl in that case was "l......
-
Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Lynch
...construction of the language of the express grant, considered in the light of the surrounding circumstances." Bland Lake Fishing & Hunting Club v. Fisher , 311 S.W.2d 710, 715-716 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1958, no writ). "It is a well settled rule that where the grant does not state the wid......
-
CHAPTER 2 ACQUIRING EXPRESS RIGHTS-OF-WAY: DRAFTING CONSIDERATIONS
...260, 10 N.W.2d 849 (1943). [115] Pugh v. Cook, 153 Ariz. 246, 735 P.2d 856 (1987). [116] Bland Lake Fishing and Hunting Club v. Fisher, 311 S.W.2d 710 (1958); Pasadena v. California-Michigan Land and Water Co., 17 Ca.2d 576, 133 ALR 1186, 110 P.2d 983 1941); Kearney & Son v. Fancher, 401 S.......