Grubb v. Teale
| Decision Date | 15 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 618 |
| Citation | 90 So.2d 727,265 Ala. 257 |
| Parties | W. I. GRUBB, Jr., et al. v. L. H. TEALE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Burr, McKamy, Moore & Tate, Maurice F. Bishop and Mark L. Taliaferro, Birmingham, for appellants.
Parsons, Wheeler & Rose, Birmingham, for appellee.
W. I. Grubb, Jr., an appellant here and a respondent below, is the owner of lot 9 of G. M. Matthews' Addition to Huffman, according to the map thereof which was filed for record in the office of the Judge of Probate of Jefferson County on June 15, 1923, and is recorded therein in Map Book 13, at page 36. According to said map this lot is in the shape of a parallelogram, 59.65 feet by 150 feet, with the long side on the north being shown as abutting a 30-foot 'County Road', generally known as Roebuck Drive. It appears that this road was paved about 1928 with a strip of brick pavement 18 to 20 feet wide. A survey of lot 9 made in 1951 revealed that part of the pavement encroached on the north side of said lot as platted. In an effort to settle the conflicting interests thus made apparent, the following agreement was entered into by Mr. Grubb and Jefferson County, viz.:
'State of Alabama Jefferson County}
'This Agreement made and entered into by and between W. I. Grubb, Jr., Party of the First Part, and Jefferson County, Alabama, Party of the Second Part;
'Witnesseth:
'Whereas, The parties hereto are desirous of settling said controversy;
'Now, Therefore, Said parties mutually agree that in consideration of the stipulations and agreements herein contained, that the southern boundary of Roebuck Drive, at the point where it lies along the northerly boundary of said Lot 9, shall be the southern edge of the pavement as it now exists, and without in any manner extending the right-of-way for the road beyond this point, W. I. Grubb, Jr., does by these presents grant, bargain, sell and convey, for the consideration of the establishing of said boundary, an easement to Jefferson County, Alabama, for drainage purposes, five (5) feet in width, said easement to be parallel with said Roebuck Drive and to have its northerly boundary as the edge of the present pavement of Roebuck Drive at this place and to extend from the edge of said paved portion of Roebuck Drive in a southerly direction for five (5) feet.
'In Witness Whereof, W. I. Grubb, Jr., and wife, Margaret Grubb, have hereunto set their hands and seals, and Jefferson County, Alabama, by and through its duly authorized officers, has caused this instrument to be executed, all on this the 29th day of January, 1952.
'W. I. Grubb, Jr. (Seal)
Margaret Grubb (Seal)
'Approved: C. J. Rogers, County Engineer
'Jefferson County, Alabama
By W. D. Kendrick President'
L. H. Teale, appellee here and complainant below, is the owner of about 6 acres of land with a frontage of 552 feet along the north side of Roebuck Drive, a portion of which is directly opposite the Grubb property. Teale, claiming that the above agreement, in effect, is an unauthorized vacation of a portion of a public road to his special damage, filed a bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, in Equity, against Grubb and Jefferson County seeking cancellation of the agreement. The bill alleges that said agreement was entered into for Grubb's 'private benefit and gain'; that 'Roebuck Drive has been a public road in Jefferson County, Alabama, in its present location, for more than 40 years next preceding the filing of this bill of complaint, and has during all of this period been used by the public continually and uninterruptedly for travel and convenience; that the public generally for more than 40 years has used and had the actual, peaceable and adverse use of said 30-foot county road, and no one to his (complainant's) knowledge and until the agreement above referred to was entered into, claimed any part of said road; that Jefferson County has recognized the existence of said 30-foot county road known as Roebuck Drive during all of these years'; that the effect of the agreement is to give to Grubb 'a 5-foot strip of land off the south side of said county road, and which runs the length of lot 9 adjoining Roebuck Drive, and that said agreement results in taking away from the complainant his vested right of ingress and egress on the full width of Roebuck Drive, and deprives him of his portion of the light, air, view and access along said road'; 'that the County Commission * * * was without authority in deeding or giving the above strip of property to the other respondent, and that said purported conveyance was without consideration and void, and that such instrument, if allowed to stand, would cause irreparable injury to complainant and would cause a stricture or bottleneck in said Roebuck Drive in front of his said property, and would cause it to be greatly depreciated in value'. In answering the bill, Grubb takes the position that the agreement is not a 'vacation or attempted vacation of any part of any highway or right-of-way belonging to Jefferson County' but 'an agreement settling the boundaries' between his property and the right-of-way owned by the County; that no part of Roebuck Drive was conveyed to him; and that there is 'a clearly dedicated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
County of Westchester v. Town of Greenwich, Conn.
...highway easements are defined to be such widths as are necessary for their safe and convenient use. See, e.g., Grubb v. Teale, 265 Ala. 257, 262, 90 So.2d 727 (1956); Nikiel v. City of Buffalo, 7 Misc.2d 667, 165 N.Y.S.2d 592, 597 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1957); see also State ex rel. Game, Forestation ......
-
Broward County v. Bouldin
...Highways, Section 36, page 359; 39 C.J.S. Highways § 20, p. 938; Campbell v. Covington County, 161 Miss. 374, 137 So. 111; Grubb v. Teale, 265 Ala. 257, 90 So.2d 727. We have examined the cases cited by the appellants for a contrary rule but do not find that they are applicable in the case ......
-
Patterson v. Null
...Allen v. Keeling, 613 S.W.2d 253, 254-255 (Tex.1981); Grenell v. Scott, 134 So.2d 866, 869 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1961); Grubb v. Teale, 90 So.2d 727, 731 (Ala.1956); Annotation, Highway Width and Boundaries, 76 A.L.R.2d 535, 548 constructed with public funds are not to be included within the bou......
-
Watson v. Watson
...will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly erroneous or manifestly wrong. Lamar v. Lamar, 263 Ala. 391, 82 So.2d 558; Grubb v. Teale, 265 Ala. 257, 90 So.2d 727. We hold that the decree of the trial court in this case awarding alimony in gross to the complainant was not plainly erroneou......