Buttrill v. Stanfield

• Decision Date: 25 March 1947
• Docket Number: 32298.
• Parties: BUTTRILL et al. v. STANFIELD et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

178 P.2d 889

198 Okla. 374, 1947 OK 90

BUTTRILL et al. v. STANFIELD et al.

No. 32298.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

March 25, 1947

Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Clarence Mills, Judge.

Action by E. C. Stanfield and another against Martin L. Buttrill and others to quiet title to an easement over part of lot. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where the owner of adjoining lots subjects one to a burden in favor of the other and thereafter sells and conveys one of such lots, the contracting parties, in absence of evidence to the contrary are presumed to contract with reference to the condition of the property at the time of the sale.

2. An easement over part of land adjoining other land conveyed by owners of both tracts to another derives its origin from a grant and cannot legally exist where owner of servient land was never seized of both tracts.

3. Where owner of adjoining lots so employes one of them that the other derives continuous, permanent, and apparent benefit from first lot and sells lot in favor of which such quasi easement exists, such easement, being necessary to reasonable enjoyment of property granted, passes to grantee by implication.

4. An easement is a legal property right transferable with the real estate to which it is appurtenant, whether mentioned in the deed or not, and will support an action to quiet title.

Everest McKenzie & Gibbens, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

Schwoerke & Schwoerke, of Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.

GIBSON Justice.

Defendants in error instituted this action against plaintiffs in error to judicially establish and quiet their title to an implied easement for passageway over land owned by the defendants. Plaintiffs were awarded judgment, and it is therefrom defendants appeal.

For reversal it is urged (1) the court erred in the admission of testimony and (2) that the findings and judgment of the court are contrary to the law and the evidence.

The premises involved are lots 12 and 13 of the Capitol Court Addition to Oklahoma City, which are contiguous, and an unplatted area that adjoins said lot 12. The lots and the unplatted area face south on 23rd Street. The lots have a frontage of 25 feet each and the unplatted area a frontage of 100 feet, and all have a common depth of 160 feet.

During 1934 Eddy Walls became the owner of the entire premises which were then unimproved. In that year she erected a building near the southeast corner of the acreage lot and another on the southwest corner thereof. Between these buildings there was a space of about 8 1/2 feet. This space was paved with concrete and used as a passageway. The passage extended to the rear of the buildings, thence making a U turn westward and coming south to 23rd Street west of said building near the southwest corner. Thereafter, in 1938, said owner erected a building on lots 12 and 13. This last mentioned building beginning with a common wall with the building in the southeast corner of the unplatted area extended eastward making a solid frontage on 23rd Street from the driveway to the east line of lot 13.

In September 1939 the owner conveyed the entire premises to Local Federal Savings and Loan Association. Thereafter, on January 11, 1943, the Association conveyed, by general warranty deed, to E. C. Stanfield and Burnette Stanfield defendants in error, lots 12 and 13 and the East 48 feet of the unplatted area, and on November 10, 1943, conveyed the West 52 feet of the area to Martin L. Buttrill and Olin H. Buttrill, plaintiffs in error. The west wall of the building on the east 48 feet lies one-tenth of a foot east of the west line of the lot and hence the driveway alongside lies almost entirely on the lot granted to the Buttrills.

Concerning the character of the buildings and of the drive, the use thereof and knowledge of the conditions, the court found, among other things, as follows:

'The property immediately to the East of the driveway owned by plaintiffs is known as No. 1411. The property to the West of the driveway owned by the defendants is known as No. 1409. The building on plaintiffs' property next to the driveway is a one story brick business building with living quarters in the rear. On its West side and opening from it onto the driveway are four large windows and a door. The building on defendants' property is partially one story and partially a two story brick structure, used for business in the front portion and for dwellings in the rear. On its East side are eight large windows. These buildings constructed by the Harwicks are substantial and permanent structures. The

...