Randall v. Grant
| Decision Date | 29 November 1911 |
| Parties | RANDALL v. GRANT et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
A. R. White, 2d, for plaintiff.
A Fuller and W. J. Davison, for defendants.
DE COURCY, J.
This is a bill in equity to restrain the defendants from using a right of way over the plaintiff's land. Walter H Andrews, in July, 1897, conveyed the land to the plaintiff's predecessor in title, Levi C. Randall 'reserving to the grantor and his heirs and assigns a right of way through the premises to land in the rear.' In January, 1908, Andrews conveyed to the defendant Grant the land in the rear referred to, which is a 3-acre lot; and in the granting clause of the deed is the following 'Together with a right of way from said premises to Washington Street through land of Levi C. Randall as reserved in the deed from Walter H. Andrews to said Randall dated July 23, 1897, and through land of James E. Howard as now used.' All of the lots referred to are situated in South Easton, lying easterly of Washington street, the westerly line of the 3-acre lot being about 310 feet and the plaintiff's lot about 214 feet from said street.
The case was referred to a master and was reserved for our determination upon the pleadings and the master's report. The master finds that the 3-acre lot was used for garden and grass land before and during the ownership of Andrews. The soil is light and underneath it, or a large part of it, is sand or gravel. Andrews opened a sand pit on the easterly portion of it not later than 1902, and drew sand therefrom over the right of way in question, selling about 600 loads and using some for filling. After the defendant Grant acquired title to the tract she sold sand from the pit to the town, and about 200 loads were taken over the same route that Andrews used. To these and certain other similar uses of the way no objection was made.
At the hearing before the master the plaintiff conceded that the defendant Grant had a right of way across the southerly portion of her lot from east to west, from the 3-acre tract to the common right of way to Washington street, and made no objection to the location of the way. But she complains of the use to which the way has been put by the several defendants.
The defendant George W. Nye has been using the way in going from Washington street to a house hired by him from the defendant Grant and located on land other than the 3-acre piece.
The defendants William G. Irving, Hugh Cummins and James Sullivan are teamsters and are using the way in drawing sand from the sand pit on the 3-acre lot to the common way to Washington street. They are employés of a contractor to whom the defendant Grant sold some sand, and the master finds that the manner of using the way in carting gravel and sand, if the defendants have the right so to use it, has been reasonable.
There is no occasion to consider the case of the defendant
Sanderson, as he has removed from the neighborhood and has ceased to use the way.
As against the defendant Nye the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Clearly the right of way over the plaintiff's land appurtenant...
To continue reading
Request your trial