REAL PROPERTY-EASEMENTS-IMPLIED GRANT OF RIGHT OF WAY

Authors

James B. Wilson, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Plaintiffs claimed an easement by implied grant in a driveway situated wholly on defendants' land, but directly adjoining the land of plaintiffs. The driveway had been constructed at a time when both pieces of property were owned by X. X had conveyed part of the land to plaintiffs' remote grantor, and three months later had conveyed the adjoining portion, including the driveway, to defendants' remote grantor. The driveway had fallen into disrepair and at the time of the action was in such a depreciated state as to be practically useless. On the opposite side of plaintiffs' house there was space on which a driveway of the same dimensions as the disputed way could be constructed. In an action to enjoin defendants from interfering with plaintiffs' use of the drive, the trial court denied the injunction. On appeal, held, affirmed. Necessity is an essential element for establishing an easement by implication, and the facts here do not sustain a finding of necessity. Wilp v. Magnus, (Okla. 1951) 230 P. (2d) 733.

Recommended Citation

James B. Wilson, REAL PROPERTY-EASEMENTS-IMPLIED GRANT OF RIGHT OF WAY, 50 Mich. L. Rev. 621 (1952).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol50/iss4/19