Depriest v. Jones.1

• Decision Date: 04 April 1895
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: DEPRIEST. v. JONES.1

21 S.E. 478

DEPRIEST.

v.JONES.¹

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

April 4, 1895.

Acceptance op Dedication — Act op Assembly — Obstruction of Street — Adverse Possession— Purchaser with Notice —Recitals in Deed.

1. An act reincorporating a town, "as the same has been or may be laid off in lots, streets, and alleys, " furnishes proof of the acceptance of the dedication to the public of the streets and alleys previously laid off.

2. One cannot acquire by adverse possession the right to shut up or obstruct a public highway.

3. Where a conveyance of lots refers to a certain plan of a town for complete description, the grantee is charged with knowledge of all the facts to be ascertained by an inspection of said plan.

Appeal from circuit court, Augusta county.

Bill by Benjamin Jones against Adda K. Deprlest for an injunction. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. & J. L. Bumgardner, for appellant.

John N. Opie, for appellee.

KEITH, J. Benjamin Jones filed his bill in the circuit court of Augusta county making Adda K. Depriest defendant, and stating that he is the owner of a certain house and lot in the town of Mt. Sidney, in the county of Augusta, bounding upon a 16-foot alley running west of and parallel to the Valley turnpike, the principal street of the town; that this alley was laid off and was upon the plat of the town when it was originally incorporated; that until recently he has had ingress and egress to and from his lot over the premises of the adjoining public school, but, the school property having been inclosed, he is cut off from its further use. He avers that the alley is now open its whole length, as laid out on the maps of the town, except in the rear of lots 40 and 41, which belong to the defendant, who persists in keeping it closed, thus shutting the plaintiff out from all enjoyment of his right to use the alley aforesaid as a public highway; and being thus, as he claims, unjustly deprived of his right, he prays that the defendant may be enjoined from interfering with his use of the alley, and for such other and general relief as the nature of his case requires. The defendant answers under oath, and denies every material allegation of the bill. She avers that she purchased the lot in question by deed from Dinkel and wife, in 1885; that at the time of the purchase there was no alley in the rear of the premises, and, as she is informed and believes, had never been such an alley as plaintiff claims, or any alley whatever; that, on purchasing the property, she employed competent counsel to examine the title, and the abstract of title was submitted to her running back to one George Sampson, who on March 3, 1835, conveyed the lot to William Gambill, from whom she deduces her title; and that during all that time the property has been fenced just as it was at the time the bill was filed. Numerous depositions were taken by both parties. It does not appear when the town of Mt Sidney was first incorporated, but it is proved that a great many years ago there was a plat made of it, and from that plat it appears that it was...