Douglass v. Riggin
| Decision Date | 18 March 1914 |
| Docket Number | 11. |
| Citation | 90 A. 1000,123 Md. 18 |
| Parties | DOUGLASS et al. v. RIGGIN. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Somerset County, in Equity; Henry L. D Stanford and Robley D. Jones, Judges.
Bill by Arintha J. Riggin against M. Henry Douglass and another. From a decree for complainant, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Thomas S. Hodson, of Crisfield, for appellants.
Miles & Myers, of Princess Anne, and Clarence P. Lankford, of Crisfield, for appellee.
The appellants and the appellee are the owners of adjacent properties fronting on the south side of Main street in Crisfield. Upon the lot of the appellants is a structure known as Odd Fellows' Hall, and that of the appellee is improved with a dwelling house and millinery store. Between the buildings of the respective parties is a vacant space 20 feet in width extending from the street to the rear limits of the lots, a distance of 100 feet. The appellee claims the right to use this space as an alley in connection with her property, and in this proceeding seeks to have the appellants restrained by injunction from obstructing such use by continuing certain work which was in progress at the time of the filing of the bill.
In 1876 James K. Rayfield, who was then the holder of the record title to all of the block of which the lots and disputed ground form a part, conveyed by deed to Purnell Johnson a lot fronting 76 1/2 feet on the south side of Main street bounding 100 feet on the east side of Fifth street, and described as covering half the width of the whole lot then owned by the grantor, "except ten feet, which," as the deed provided, "is to be used with an additional ten feet, making a twenty feet street through the entire lot." Prior to the execution of this deed, the grantor had sold, but had not conveyed, to Thomas S. Hodson the eastern half of the block to the depth of 100 feet from Main street, reserving to the grantor, as the proof shows, and as the deed subsequently given recites, "the right to ten feet on the southwest side for a street whenever he may desire to open the same." In the deed from Rayfield to Johnson it is stipulated that the street for which it makes provision "is to be used in common between the aforesaid lot & Hon. T. S. Hodson's lot on the east side of said twenty feet street." By deed dated July 3, 1885, the appellee acquired from Purnell Johnson the portion of his lot fronting 36 feet on Main street, and binding on the "twenty-foot street," to the depth of 100 feet, together with all the grantor's interest in the street thus defined. The appellants hold title to the Odd Fellows' Hall property under a deed executed in 1892, which describes their lot by reference to the conveyance from James K. Rayfield to Thomas S. Hodson.
It was the evident intent and effect of the grants and reservations thus mentioned to establish a way 20 feet wide between the lots in question for use in common by the owners as appurtenant to their respective properties. The proof in the record shows that the area thus set apart has in fact been used for many years by the appellee as an alleyway from the street to the rear of her premises for general purposes of ingress and egress, including the hauling and delivery of fuel and merchandise.
The deeds under which the appellants claim conveyed the fee in the eastern half of the way, subject to the reservation quoted. There was no corresponding conveyance of the fee in the western half of the street space by the deed under which the appellee obtained title, but the grant of an easement in the street as appurtenant to her own and the opposite premises is clear and explicit. In December, 1911, the appellants acquired the fee in the western half of the area in controversy from the successors in title of James K Rayfield. Several months later they began the construction of a concrete pavement across and within the northern end of the alley adjacent to Main street. The pavement thus projected, and partly completed, was on a level with the existing sidewalk on Main street, but, as extended into the alley space, its surface was at an elevation of 18 inches to 2 feet above the ground, and it consequently prevented the use of the alley for the passage of teams.
The appellants contend that the appellee has no interest in the vacant area between the two properties, and that she is therefore not entitled to object to the improvement they have undertaken as the owners of the fee. Their denial of the appellee's right to an easement in the reserved space is based upon the theory, first, that the purpose of the reservation was merely to retain in the original grantor the...
To continue reading
Request your trial