Bricault v. Cavanaugh, 84.
| Decision Date | 06 December 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 84.,84. |
| Parties | BRICAULT et al. v. CAVANAUGH et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Saginaw County, in Chancery; Clarence M. Browne, Judge.
Suit by Raymond H. Bricault and another against Daniel S. Cavanaugh and others. From a decree in favor of the defendants, the plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Cook & Cook, of Saginaw, for appellants.
Otto & Holland, of Saginaw, for appellee Daniel S. Cavanaugh.
The plaintiffs claim an easement by grant for the purpose of a driveway over land belonging to defendants. This bill was filed to confirm the easement and to restrain interference with its use.
The plaintiffs are the owners of the south half of a certain lot in the city of Saginaw, Mich. The defendant Cavanaugh is the owner of the north half. Both of the parties purchased from a common grantor, Mrs. Lucina M. Beach. The deed to the plaintiffs contained the following clause: ‘Subject to a joint driveway between said above described premises and the north one-half of said lot three; and to be kept and maintained as such joint drive hereafter by the respective owners of the two said above described premises.’ The Cavanaugh deed, which was about five years subsequent to that of the plaintiffs, contained no reference to the joint driveway.
In improving his lot, the defendant placed an obstruction in the drive which prevented its use by the plaintiffs. Thereupon they brought this suit. On the hearing the trial court held that the provision in the plaintiffs' deed on which they rely is too indefinite to create an easement; and that to the plaintiffs the driveway is not a way of necessity. From a decree dismissing their bill they have appealed.
Prior to the time that Mrs. Beach, the common grantor, received her title to lot 3, there seems to have been a ten-foot joint driveway over the south five feet of the north half and the north five feet of the south half. At least such an easement was provided for in the earlier conveyances. Whether it was established entirely on the north half of the lot now owned by the defendant Cavanaugh, the record does not show. At the time this controversy arose it was entirely on the north half. It is probably true that its exact location with reference to the two lots was not known by any of the parties until a survey was made shortly before this suit was commenced. But regardless of its original location, the easement ceased to exist when Mrs. Beach became the owner of the entire lot on February 24, 1920. When she received title to both parcels, the easement was merged and extinguished. She could not have an easement in her own land. Morgan v. Meuth, 60 Mich. 238, 27 N. W. 509.
The old easement was extinguished. When she conveyed to the plaintiffs she attempted to create a new one. The question is whether the language of the deed is sufficient for that purpose.
The language used clearly shows that it was her intention to create an easement for a driveway between the two parcels. The only mistake in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Von Meding v. Strahl
...One cannot ahve an easement in one's own land.” Dimoff v. Laboroff, 296 Mich. 325, 328, 296 N.W. 275, 276, citing Bricault v. Cavanaugh, 261 Mich. 70, 245 N.W. 573, and Morgan v. Meuth, 60 Mich. 238, 27 N.W. 509. This is the universal rule. Walsh, Commentaries on Law of Real Property, Vol. ......
-
Harr v. Coolbaugh, 90
...Ordinarily, an owner cannot create an easement in part of his property for the benefit of other parts thereof.' In Bricault v. Cavanaugh, 261 Mich. 70, 245 N.W. 573, we held that an easement is extinguished when the same person becomes the owner of both pieces of property, and it is also th......
-
Byrd Companies, Inc. v. Smith
...jurisdictions as well. See, Penn Bowling Recreation Center, Inc. v. Hot Shoppes, Inc., 179 F.2d 64 (D.C.Cir.1949); Bricault v. Cavanaugh, 261 Mich. 70, 245 N.W. 573 (1932); Polyzois v. Resnick, 123 Neb. 663, 243 N.W. 864 In Polyzois, a factually similar case, the Supreme Court of Nebraska h......
-
Dean v. Colt
...appearances. In the case at bar, plaintiff pleads that defendants are insisting upon a continuance of the way. In Bricault v. Cavanaugh, 261 Mich. 70 (245 N.W. 573), it appears that plaintiffs constructed a dwelling house occupying the entire portion of their lot reserved for the easement. ......