Sultzman v. Branham
Decision Date | 21 January 1908 |
Citation | 108 S.W. 1074,128 Mo. App. 696 |
Parties | SULTZMAN v. BRANHAM et al. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
A purchaser of lots procured as a part of the transaction a lease from the vendor of a three-foot alleyway for a rear outlet from the lots. The lease stipulated that the vendor leased to the purchaser for a specified consideration for 99 years a strip described, and bound the vendor to maintain a cistern and closet "on said premises," and to lease the same for 99 years to the purchaser, who agreed to pay a part of all necessary repairs the cistern and closet might require during the period. Held, that the vendor could not obstruct the way by the construction of a closet within its limits.
Appeal from Hannibal Court of Common Pleas; David H. Eby, Judge.
Action by Nettie Sultzman against Thomas H. Branham and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Chas. E. Reudlen, for appellants. Thomas H. Bacon, for respondent.
This is a suit in equity to enjoin the obstruction of a private way over which the plaintiff claims easement of egress and ingress. Plaintiff and the defendant Branham own and occupy in person and by tenants contiguous properties in the city of Hannibal, Mo. Plaintiff holds her property under and by virtue of deeds executed to her grantors by Branham, who was the common source of title. The passageway in dispute was created by a lease executed by Branham to John B. Shepherd June 12, 1876. The lease was subsequently assigned to the plaintiff. It is necessary to copy it, as both plaintiff's cause of action and the defenses of the defendants is founded upon it: . Third street in the city of Hannibal runs north and south and Broadway east and west. Branham's property faces west on Third street, and appears to be divided into three lots, all improved, of which the south one is occupied by defendant Masterson as Branham's tenant. Masterson conducts a saloon in the building. Branham is personally in possession of the two lots north of the one occupied by his tenant, Masterson. Immediately north of Branham's lot and running east and west, so as to intersect Third street, is a private alley 10 feet wide, which connects on the east with a public alley, running north and south, 16 feet wide. Running parallel to said private alley and south of both Branham's and the Sultzman's property is Broadway, which intersects Third street at right angles. Mrs. Sultzman's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jenkins v. John Taylor Dry Goods Co.
... ... Butterfield, 221 N.W. 293; Smith v ... Edgewood, 36 A. 128 (also 35 A. 884); Kenney v ... Seu, 101 Minn. 253; Sultaman v. Branham, 128 ... Mo.App. 696; Carondolet v. Wolfert, 39 Mo. 303; ... Lewis v. St. Louis, 69 Mo. 595; Fulkerson v ... Lynn, 64 Mo.App. 649; Weigle ... ...
-
Robins v. Wright
... ... enforce it under the evidence herein. Realty Co. v ... Realty Co., 245 Mo. 417; Hatton v. K. C. C. & L., 253 Mo. 660; Sultzman v. Branham, 128 ... Mo.App. 696. (4) Even though the wall in question might be ... called a party wall in a general sense, that fact would in no ... ...
-
Robins v. Wright
...to enjoy and enforce it under the evidence herein. Realty Co. v. Realty Co., 245 Mo. 417; Hatton v. K.C.C. & L., 253 Mo. 660; Sultzman v. Branham, 128 Mo. App. 696. (4) Even though the wall in question might be called a party wall in a general sense, that fact would in no way destroy or eve......
- Hill v. Barnard