Looney v. Blackwood
Decision Date | 17 March 1932 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 235. |
Citation | 140 So. 400,224 Ala. 342 |
Parties | LOONEY ET AL. v. BLACKWOOD. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; Jas. E. Hooton, Judge.
Bill in equity by Jessie Ruth Blackwood against Sarah Looney, Floyd Howell, and Della Howell. From a decree for complainant respondents appeal.
Affirmed.
J. N Powell, of Hartselle, for appellants.
A. J Harris, of Decatur, for appellee.
Bill by Jessie Ruth Blackwood, appellee here, against Sarah Looney and others. The purpose of the bill is to have the court, by its decree, to vest in the complainant an easement or right of way twenty feet wide along the south boundary of the defendant's (Sarah Looney's) land, and for mandatory injunction compelling the defendant Looney to remove an obstruction out of said right of way; that the court will reform complainant's deed so as to describe the said twenty feet right of way as being along the south boundary line of the said property of defendant Looney. Complainant prays in the alternative that the court mark out, define, and vest in her a right of way twenty feet wide across the property of said Sarah Looney and leading from complainant's property east to the said Nance Bridge public road; and for general relief.
To this bill the respondent demurred, assigning numerous grounds of demurrer. The court overruled the demurrer.
On final hearing on the pleading and proof, the court held that the bill contained equity, and granted the complainant relief locating and defining the right of way, and requiring the defendant Looney to remove from said right of way, as located by the court, a barn which was located thereon.
The first error assigned relates to action of the court in overruling the demurrers of the defendants to the bill. No argument is submitted by the appellants to support this assignment of error, and we must deem it as waived under the uniform rulings of this court. Stewart v. Clemens, 220 Ala. 224, 124 So. 863, 66 A. L. R. 1454; Hodge v. Rambo, 155 Ala. 175, 45 So. 678; Western Ry. Co. v. Rusell, Admr., 144 Ala. 143, 39 So. 311, 113 Am. St. Rep. 24; Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Quinton, 194 Ala. 126, 69 So. 604; Whitaker v. Hofmayer Dry Goods Co., 211 Ala. 160, 99 So. 911.
It appears from the averments of the bill that the complainant purchased of the defendant Looney nineteen and one-half acres of land lying near the town of Hartselle, Ala. That other lands of the said grantor adjoined the conveyed tract on the south and east, and that there was no public road or outlet from the complainant's said land to any public highway; that to reach a highway complainant must traverse a part of the lands of defendant Looney; that by traveling over a part of Mrs. Looney's land, which lies just to the east of and adjoining complainant's land, access could be had to the public road mentioned in complainant's deed; and it is further averred that, shortly after the execution of the deed to complainant, a twenty foot roadway was staked off by Mrs. Looney and the complainant to the public road, and that complainant had been continuously using same; and that Mrs. Looney agreed to remove a barn which blocked the roadway, but has since refused to do so, thereby requiring the complainant to "circle the barn," and, in doing so, to go on property of the defendants Howell. And complainant avers:
The description of the property conveyed by Mrs. Looney to complainant and of the grant of a roadway is as follows:
It has long been the law in this state, as well as in nearly every state in the Union, that, where a grantor sells land to another, which is surrounded, or partly surrounded by other lands of the grantor, and the grantee has no way of ingress or egress thereto or therefrom, except by traversing lands of the grantor or of strangers, right of way over the remaining lands of grantor exists by necessity. Hill v. Wing, 193 Ala. 312, 325, 69 So. 445; Taylor v. Warnaky, 55 Cal. 350; Mesmer v. Uharriet, 174 Cal. 110, 162 P 104; Myers v. Dunn, 49 Conn. 71; Derrickson v. Springer, 5 Har. (Del.) 21; Rock Island & P. R. Co. v. Dimick, 144 Ill. 628, 32 N.E. 291, 19 L. R. A. 105; Ellis v. Bassett, 128 Ind. 118, 27 N.E. 344, 25 Am. St. Rep. 421; Mead v. Anderson, 40 Kan. 203, 19 P. 708; Conley v. Fairchild, 142 Ky. 271, 134 S.W. 142; Anderson v. Dyer, 107 Me. 342, 78 A. 453; Zimmerman v. Cockey, 118 Md. 491, 84 A. 743; Hart v. Deering, 222 Mass. 407, 111 N.E. 37; Bean v. Bean, 163 Mich. 379, 128 N.W. 413; Board of Sup'rs of Lamar County v. Elliott, 107 Miss. 841, 66 So. 203; Higbee Fishing Club v. Atlantic City Elec. Co., 78 N. J. Eq. 434, 79 A. 326; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
USA Cartage Leasing, LLC v. Baer
...“the holders of the dominant estate are entitled to a convenient, suitable, and accessible easement of way.”); Looney v. Blackwood, 224 Ala. 342, 140 So. 400, 401 (1932) (A court of equity has the power to locate either a general express easement or an implied easement-by-necessity, but the......
-
Ingelson v. Olson
...& Electric Co. v. Crockett, etc., Co., 70 Cal.App. 283, 292-294, 233 P. 370; Stevens v. MacRae, 97 Vt. 76, 122 A. 892; Looney v. Blackwood, 224 Ala. 342, 140 So. 400; McKenney v. McKenney, 216 Mass. 248, 103 N.E. 631. In Grafton v. Moir, 130 N.Y. 465, at page 471, 29 N.E. 974, 976, 27 Am.St......
-
Nolan v. Moore
...24; Stewart v. Clemens, 220 Ala. 224, 124 So. 863, 66 A.L.R. 1454; Reese v. Mackentepe, 224 Ala. 372, 140 So. 550; Looney et al. v. Blackwood, 224 Ala. 342, 140 So. 400; Wholesale Produce & Truckers Association of Ala., Inc., v. Mazer, 240 Ala. 491, 199 So. The complainant and the responden......
-
Alabama Power Co. v. Ray
...Central R. Co. v. Long, 158 Ala. 301, 48 So. 363; Alabama Corn Mills Co. v. Mobile Docks Co., 200 Ala. 126, 75 So. 574; Looney v. Blackwood, 224 Ala. 342, 140 So. 400. When a conveyance of a right of way does not describe or define it by metes and bounds, the grantee is entitled to a conven......