West v. Probst
Decision Date | 07 February 1923 |
Docket Number | (No. 6872.) |
Citation | 251 S.W. 289 |
Parties | WEST et al. v. PROBST et al.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Live Oak County; M. A. Childers, Judge.
Suit for injunction by Joe Probst and others against George W. West and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Dougherty & Dougherty and Beasley & Beasley, all of Beeville, and Denman, Franklin & McGown, of San Antonio, for appellants.
L. D. Stroud, of Beeville, and Gordon Gibson, of Fort Worth, for appellees.
This suit was brought by Joe Probst and other appellees, on behalf of themselves and all other property owners in the town of George West similarly situated, against George W. West, the George West Water & Light Company, and the George West Sewer Company, to establish and enforce the alleged rights of plaintiffs in the water and sewer systems built in the unincorporated town of George West by said West individually. A receiver was appointed by the trial court upon application of appellees to take charge of and operate the system. The trial was had before the court without a jury, and the court made and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The judgment, among other things, was as follows:
It is not necessary to describe the pleadings of the parties, offensive or defensive, as they are quite sufficient to clearly present the theories of either party.
The first contention made by appellant is that the court erred in adjudging to plaintiffs an easement in their respective lots to take and use water from their respective systems because there is no evidence to support such a judgment. The material provisions of the deed substantially provided, among other things: (a) Within 12 months the grantee shall erect improvements in value not less than the purchase price; (b) shall connect the improvements, including all baths, closets sinks, etc., with the sewer system in said town within 30 days after said improvements are occupied; (c) and after the sewer mains are laid in a street or alley in the rear or front of the lot the grantee shall not establish or allow any privy, vault, or other outhouse on said property; (d) and thereafter shall not dig, erect, or allow on the land any cesspool, cistern, or other thing in which water may collect to be taken or used. From these conditions in the deed, in connection with other verbal and written declarations, contemporaneously made, inducing the sale and purchase of the land, it is claimed: (1) An implied grant, arising from necessity; (2) an express grant according to the terms of the uniform deed read in the light of actual conditions existing at the time of its execution; and (3) because of the representation of West acted upon by plaintiffs to their detriment in making the purchase West is estopped to deny that the easements were in fact appurtenant to the lots purchased.
It is further contended the provisions for forfeiture in the event of violation of any of the above conditions grant a negative easement to each owner of any lot to have the conditions faithfully carried out and performed with reference to each lot, with the right to bring suit to enforce performance granting the corresponding right of forfeiture "only in the grantor or his heirs."
From a careful examination of all the authorities presented by both parties it is clear to us that there arises from the covenants in the deed and the declarations of the grantor, verbal and written, in connection with the deed, an easement for the benefit of those who hold conveyances to secure the benefits, at least by implied grant, arising from necessity as long as the system exists. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Murphy v. Kerr
...v. Lesher, 28 Colo. 273, 65 P. 44; Fitch v. Johnson, 104 Ill. 111; Carr v. Lowry, 27 Pa. 257; note, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 375; West v. Probst (Tex. Civ. App.) 251 S.W. 289. In case of Fitch v. Johnson, supra, the court said: 'This is an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Court for the First......
-
Murphy v. Kerr
...1044; Grand Valley Irrigation Co. v. Lesher, 28 Colo. 273, 65 P. 44, 48, 49; Carr v. Lowry's Adm'x, 27 Pa. 257, 258; West v. Probst (Tex. Civ. App.) 251 S. W. 289, 291, 292. Finally, the receiver's counsel suggests that, if the decree below be affirmed a suit for specific performance of the......
-
West v. Probst
...Judicial District. Suit by Joe Probst and others against George W. West and others. To review a judgment of the Civil Court of Appeals (251 S. W. 289), reversing the judgment of the district court and rendering a judgment which was not satisfactory, each party sued out a writ of error and b......