Renfroe v. Weaver, 5 Div. 885
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | McCALL; LIVINGSTON |
| Citation | 228 So.2d 764,285 Ala. 1 |
| Parties | L. A. RENFROE and Gladys Renfroe v. Mary F. WEAVER, a widow. |
| Decision Date | 20 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 885 |
Page 764
v.
Mary F. WEAVER, a widow.
James Noel Baker, Opelika, for appellants.
[285 Ala. 2] Samford, Torbert & Denson, Opelika, for appellee.
McCALL, Justice.
The appellants in this case, L. A. Renfroe and Gladys Renfroe, seek to reverse a final [285 Ala. 3] decree of the circuit court, in equity, enjoining them from obstructing and interfering with the ingress and egress of the appellee, Mary F. Weaver, over and through a right-of-way claimed by her, and further, from repairing, assembling, working on, or testing automobiles and 'hot-rods' at appellants' garage so as to cause loud and offensive noises, odors and annoyances to the appellee.
The parties derived title from the common grantors, S. F. Appleby and wife. The appellee acquired title to her two adjoining lots in 1957 and 1958, respectively, and the appellants received their deed in 1962 to the lot adjoining the appellee on the southwest along a common 300 foot boundary line. The Appleby deed to the appellants reserves
Page 765
a right-of-way in the real property conveyed, being described as follows:'* * * less a 30 foot wide right-of-way over and through a portion of said Lot 26, which is reserved for an already existing road, situated in Lee County, Alabama.'
The appellants contend that the right-of-way in question was located and established along a road across a northwest portion of their lot, crossing in a southwesterly direction on to and across the property of one Floyd which adjoins appellants to the southwest, leaving severed a northwesterly part of appellants' lot between said road and their northwest boundary, along Lot 26, on which appellants constructed a garage and dug a deep well. After crossing Floyd's property the road gradually angles and runs in a southwesterly direction across the lot of one Elmore to the northwest boundary of said Lot 26 and then southwestwardly along this boundary to the Old Opelika Road. This is the location of the right-of-way contended for by appellants.
In 1965, Floyd built a chain link fence along his northeast property line, which is appellants' southwest property line, to within 30 feet of the northwest line of said Lot 26 of the subdivision, and he extended this fence southwesterly 75 feet across the front of his lot, leaving the 30 foot right-of-way in front of the Floyd lot. The fence cuts off travel across the lots of Floyd and Elmore as formerly used by those going to and from appellee's and appellants' properties. Access to appellee's lot has thus been changed and is reached by traveling a road in front of the Elmore and Floyd lots along the northwest boundary of Lot 26 to the northwest corner of Floyd's lot where travelers are required to make a right angle turn around the Floyd property and then proceed across the appellants' property.
The appellee contends that the right-of-way as originally located and established in the Appleby deed to the appellants did not run along the way or course utilized by her up to the time Floyd built the fence, but was in truth located and established along a prolongation or extension northeastwardly of the 30 foot right-of-way inside of and bordering the northwest boundary line of said Lot 26 to the southerly boundary of appellee's property. She further contends that the appellants should be required to clear this right-of-way of the garage and deep well placed thereon by them, because they obstruct and interfere with her freedom of use of the right-of-way as it was initially located and established pursuant to the right-of-way clause in appellants' deed. She also insists that the nuisance created by the noise, odors and annoyance from the operation of the garage should be abated.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnston v. Bridges, 1 Div. 677
...court, are presumed to be correct and that such findings and conclusions carry with them the force of a jury verdict. Renfroe v. Weaver, 285 Ala. 1, 228 So.2d 764; Stephens v. Stephens, 280 Ala. 312, 193 So.2d 755. In Renfroe v. Weaver, supra, 285 Ala. at p. 5, 228 So.2d at p. 767, we '* * ......
-
Pardue v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 2 Div. 535
...evidence, or are manifestly unjust, which we do not find to be the case, the final decree is due to be affirmed. Renfore v. Weaver, 285 Ala. 1, 228 So.2d 764, and cases there Moreover, as already noted, the trial court, with the consent of the parties, personally inspected the premises befo......
-
Sterling Oil of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Pack, X--1
...will be sustained unless they are clearly and palpably wrong or without supporting evidence, or are manifestly unjust. Renfroe v. Weaver, 285 Ala. 1, 228 So.2d 764 (1969). Where the trial judge's ruling is grounded on no specific ground, his judgment must be sustained on appeal if any good ......
-
Palmer v. Rucker, 3 Div. 503
...265 Ala. 533, 92 So.2d 881; Holoway v. Carter, 261 Ala. 51, 72 So.2d 728; Deese v. Odom, 283 Ala. 420, 218 So.2d 134.' Renfroe v. Weaver, 285 Ala. 1, 5, 228 So.2d 764, 767 We hold that the decision of the trial court in this regard is correct, the appellants having failed to meet the burden......
-
Johnston v. Bridges, 1 Div. 677
...court, are presumed to be correct and that such findings and conclusions carry with them the force of a jury verdict. Renfroe v. Weaver, 285 Ala. 1, 228 So.2d 764; Stephens v. Stephens, 280 Ala. 312, 193 So.2d 755. In Renfroe v. Weaver, supra, 285 Ala. at p. 5, 228 So.2d at p. 767, we '* * ......
-
Pardue v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 2 Div. 535
...evidence, or are manifestly unjust, which we do not find to be the case, the final decree is due to be affirmed. Renfore v. Weaver, 285 Ala. 1, 228 So.2d 764, and cases there Moreover, as already noted, the trial court, with the consent of the parties, personally inspected the premises befo......
-
Sterling Oil of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Pack, X--1
...will be sustained unless they are clearly and palpably wrong or without supporting evidence, or are manifestly unjust. Renfroe v. Weaver, 285 Ala. 1, 228 So.2d 764 (1969). Where the trial judge's ruling is grounded on no specific ground, his judgment must be sustained on appeal if any good ......
-
Palmer v. Rucker, 3 Div. 503
...265 Ala. 533, 92 So.2d 881; Holoway v. Carter, 261 Ala. 51, 72 So.2d 728; Deese v. Odom, 283 Ala. 420, 218 So.2d 134.' Renfroe v. Weaver, 285 Ala. 1, 5, 228 So.2d 764, 767 We hold that the decision of the trial court in this regard is correct, the appellants having failed to meet the burden......