American Oil Company v. Leaman

Supreme Court of Virginia

American Oil Company v. Leaman

101 S.E.2d 540, 199 Va. 637, 1958 Va. LEXIS 109

CourtSupreme Court of Virginia

DecidedJanuary 20, 1958

DocketRecord 4706

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 101 S.E.2d 540 (American Oil Company v. Leaman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Oil Company v. Leaman, 101 S.E.2d 540, 199 Va. 637, 1958 Va. LEXIS 109 (Va. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Miller, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

On June 22, 1955, John Randolph Leaman, Jr., instituted suit against the American Oil Company, hereinafter called Amoco, and sought restrictive and mandatory injunctive relief against that corporation. He alleged that he was the owner of two lots of land, together with a residence, and as appurtenant thereto, owned an easement in common with others in a road 30 feet wide that afforded ingress and egress to and from a public highway known as Goodwyn’s Neck Road, and that Amoco had wrongfully obstructed the road. He prayed that Amoco be restrained from interfering with his use of the easement and required to remove all obstructions that it had placed in the road.

In Amoco’s answer, it admitted that in the erection of a petroleum refinery it had filled in the road and installed facilities on the area embraced in the easement, and had erected near thereto expensive and permanent improvements that would be seriously damaged if it were required to reopen the road. However, it asserted that ample and convenient ingress and egress to and from Leaman’s lots, and the land of others who had enjoyed the easement in common in the 30-foot road, was afforded by State route 631, known as Waterview *639 Road, and that the easement had been abandoned by those entitled to use it. It also alleged that State route 630, known as Goodwyn’s Neck Road, had been abandoned by public authority, and that the purpose for which the easement was granted had ceased to exist, and it had been extinguished.

Amoco also insisted that the easement was not necessary to the convenient use of Leaman’s property and reopening of the road should not be ordered even though the easement had not been abandoned or extinguished, but it should be allowed to respond in damages to Leaman.

A motion made by Amoco that the court receive evidence having to do with the balance of convenience, the value of Leaman’s easement, and the relative damage that would result to the parties by refusal or award of an injunction was denied. The evidence upon the other issues was heard ore ienus, and after consideration of the testimony and numerous exhibits, the chancellor found that Leaman had never abandoned his easement in the road, nor had it been extinguished. An injunction was awarded which required Amoco to remove all obstructions placed on the 30-foot easement or right of way and to restore the road to the condition that existed before it was obstructed, and Amoco was perpetually enjoined from obstructing or in any wise interfering with its free and uninterrupted use by Leaman, his successors and assigns. From that decree Amoco appealed.

It is conceded by Amoco that the evidence sustains the finding that Leaman had not abandoned his easement.

The several errors assigned may be consolidated and stated thus:

The chancellor erred (1) when he failed to hold that the purpose for which the easement was granted had ceased and the easement was thereby extinguished; and (2) he abused his judicial discretion when he refused to receive evidence relating to the balance of convenience and direct an inquiry as to the damages that should be awarded to Leaman in lieu of a mandatory injunction if the easement had not been extinguished.

To present a picture of the location of the roads in the area, and to aid the reader to visualize the progressive changes made by the extension, abandonment and relocation from time to time of private and public roads in the vicinity, reference will be made to three maps (Figures 2, 5, and 6) introduced in evidence and here reproduced.

*640 Rb2Je3pZ1LthxKWf

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI