Oliver v. Wilhite
Decision Date | 21 November 1932 |
Parties | K. Z. OLIVER, RESPONDENT, v. SARAH WILHITE ET AL., APPELLANTS |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cole County.--Hon. R. A. Bruer Special Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Irwin & Bushman for respondent.
D. W Peters for appellants.
This is a proceeding in equity for relief by mandatory injunction. Plaintiff sought and obtained an order requiring defendants to remove an obstruction from a driveway located upon the adjoining lots of plaintiff and defendants. The petition describes the property owned by plaintiff and also that owned by the defendants and states:
The temporary restraining order issued in the case was the following:
"It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendants and each of them, their agents, servants and employees, be and they are hereby required to forthwith remove from the driveway between the premises owned by the plaintiff and the premises owned by the defendants in the City of Jefferson, Cole County, Missouri, any and all posts, wire and other obstructions therein placed by the defendants, their agents, servants and employees, and hereafter refrain and desist from continuing said obstruction of said driveway until the further order of the court, and fail not at your peril."
Defendants filed timely demurrer to the petition partly on the grounds (1) that the petition shows upon its face that the plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief as prayed for or any relief, and (2) because the petition shows that the agreement claimed to have been entered into was oral and could not ripen into an easement, regardless of the lapse of time and the money spent by plaintiff in the construction of the driveway. The demurrer was overruled and the defendants declined to plead further. The court heard evidence offered by the plaintiff and at the conclusion thereof ordered and adjudged that the temporary injunction theretofore issued be made permanent. From that judgment defendants duly appealed and assign as error the ruling of the court on the demurrer for the reasons contained in it as heretofore set out, and insist in brief and argument that the right sought to be enforced is an easement over the land of defendants and that such an easement cannot be created by a verbal agreement and can arise only by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wood v. Gregory
... ... Walker, en ... banc, 342 Mo. 156, 113 S.W.2d 792. The same is true of ... Baker v. Squire, supra. See Oliver v. Wilhite, 329 ... Mo. 524, 45 S.W.2d 1083, 1084, Id., Mo.App., 41 S.W.2d 825, ... and Id., 227 Mo.App. 538, 55 S.W.2d 491. In the case of ... ...
-
Majors v. Bush
...was by adverse possession and by contractual agreement. Sanford v. Kern, 223 Mo. 616; Jacob et ux. v. Brewster, 190 S.W.2d 894; Oliver v. Wilhite, 227 Mo.App. 538. (2) The use the lane was hostile and under a claim of right. Sanford v. Kern, 223 Mo. 616; Jacobs et ux. v. Brewster, 190 S.W.2......
-
Dick v. Shannon
...by prescription, or a contract which has been performed. Gibson v. Sharp, 277 S.W.2d 672 (Mo.App.1955). Also see Oliver v. Wilhite, 227 Mo.App. 538, 55 S.W.2d 491 (1932); Edward Runge Land Company v. Busch, 594 S.W.2d 647 (No. 41280, Mo.App.E.D.1980); 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses, §§......
-
Christensen v. Luehrs
... ... involved, are: Cihak v. Klekr, 117 Ill. 643, 7 N.E ... 111; Teachout v. Duffus, 141 Iowa, 466, 119 N.W ... 983; Oliver v. Wilhite, 227 Mo.App. 538, 55 S.W.(2d) ... 491; Forde v. Libby, 22 Wyo. 464, 143 P. 1190; ... Wright v. Barlow, 169 Okl. 472, 37 P.2d 958, 959.In ... ...