Hayes v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 19 September 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. C-241,C-241 |
| Parties | James H. HAYES and Pauline G. Hayes, husband and wife, et al., Appellants, v. T. Glynn REYNOLDS et ux., Appellees. . First District |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Edward L. Bush, Palatka, for appellants.
E. L. Eastmoore, Palatka, for appellees.
The plaintiffs in an equity suit have appealed from a final decree entered by the Circuit Court for Putnam County establishing a public easement and private way of necessity across their and the defendants' lands.
Six married couples, who own lands which are cut off from the nearest state road by the property owned by the defendants Reynolds, filed a suit in that court to enjoin the said defendants from closing a dirt road running over their lands from the plaintiffs' property to the state road. A few days later the chancellor issued a temporary injunction compelling the said defendants to remove from the said dirt road certain posts driven in the roadway. Subsequently, the court, on its own motion, ordered that R. B. Barber, Gordon Partlow, and their wives be joined as parties defendant in addition to the original defendants, Reynolds and his wife.
After the taking of testimony the Circuit Court entered its final decree holding that no right of way or easement by claim or prescription existed over and across the lands of the defendants Reynolds as alleged in the complaint and that the plaintiffs had no way of ingress and egress to their 'hemmed in property.' The court then decreed that the defendants Barber, the original grantors of the lands owned by the plaintiffs and the defendants Reynolds and Partlow, were 'presumed by law to have reserved right of way for ingress and egress over the said lands for the benefit of the several Grantees, and it remains for the Court to determine the location, width and direction of said right of way. * * *' The court then went on to decree 'that an easement sixty feet in width, for the use and benefit of the several parties to this litigation and the public generally be hereby declared and dedicated over and across' certain described land, the said easement running 1320 feet across the lands owned by the plaintiffs and the defendants to the said state road.
This sixty-foot-wide public road thus declared and dedicated by the court in the final decree was about 210 feet north of the dirt road described in the complaint and shown in the evidence to have existed in favor of the plaintiffs for approximately eight years of more.
No authority--statutory or court decision or otherwise--is cited in the final decree as the basis for a Circuit Court under such circumstances as exist here, to establish a public road over lands privately owned, and no such authority is cited in any brief on this appeal.
The common-law rule of an implied grant of a way of necessity has been recognized and adopted by st...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Quick Sign, Inc. v. Reinhardt
...v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 475 So.2d 920 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985),review denied, 488 So.2d 68 (Fla.1986); Hayes v. Reynolds, 132 So.2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961). As an interest in land, an easement may be created by express grant contained in a deed or other written document. Canell v. ......
-
Hynes v. City of Lakeland
...of reasonable length and width, consistent with the needs of the owners or lessees of the lands that are hemmed in." Hayes v. Reynolds, 132 So.2d 781, 782 (Fla.App.1961). As a final point, we mention the trial court's order granting summary judgment did not address whether appellant was ent......
-
Buie v. Bluebird Landing Owner's Ass'n, Inc.
...But, as Appellee notes, an easement is a right to use another's land “for some particular purpose or purposes.” Id. ; Hayes v. Reynolds, 132 So.2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961). The parties make conflicting arguments here about the proper parameters of the easement reserved by the developer in th......
-
Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Franchise Finance Corp. of America, 97-02790
...So.2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Kempfer v. St. Johns River Water Management Dist., 475 So.2d 920 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Hayes v. Reynolds, 132 So.2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961). Section 689.18 was enacted as Chapter 26927, Laws of Florida (1951). It is of note that we can discover no case since it......