Home/E.D. Virginia/Hudson v. American Oil Company

Hudson v. American Oil Company

152 F. Supp. 757, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3462
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia
DecidedJuly 3, 1957
Docket529
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 152 F. Supp. 757 (Hudson v. American Oil Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hudson v. American Oil Company, 152 F. Supp. 757, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3462 (E.D. Va. 1957).

Opinion

HOFFMAN, District Judge.

During the year 1952 Pan American Refining Corporation (referred to as Pan-Am) acquired the rights of another oil company under certain options to purchase large tracts of land in York County, Virginia, for the purpose of constructing and operating a primary petroleum refinery. Pan-Am is the parent corporation of the defendant, The American Oil Company (referred to as Amoco), and, having acquired title to the various parcels of land, proceeded to convey the same to Amoco.

In an action instituted by certain owners of residences located on the southern shore of the York River in a section known as Goodwyn’s Neck in York County, with particular reference to Block 1, Section B, Plan of Waterview, twenty-four complainants seek an injunction to restrain defendant from blocking or interfering with the use of a 30-foot private road easement extending in a southerly direction from Route 631, also known as Waterview Road, to Route 630, also known as Goodwyn’s Neck Road. Additionally, complainants request a mandatory injunction requiring defendant to remove all materials and structures which have been placed on either the 30-foot road easement or Route 630, which would interfere with the use of said roads by complainants. The residences of said complainants are bounded on the north by the York River and on the south by Route 631. It is conceded that defendant has caused large and valuable structures to be erected in locations blocking the use of the roads in question.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss as to the complainant, Margaret E. Moore, and a motion for summary judgment as to all complainants. For reasons herein stated the' motions must be granted.

Disregarding for the moment the motion to dismiss, the determinative question appears to be:

Does the cessation of purpose doctrine apply where a private road easement has been granted for the purpose of ingress and egress to and from secondary highways and one of said highways has been legally abandoned, thus leaving the holders of the private road easement with a means of ingress and egress through the medium of the remaining secondary highway but requiring a greater distance to travel?

It is essential to view the numerous plats introduced in evidence to visualize the situation as it existed before and after Amoco erected its plant. For the purpose of this opinion it is deemed sufficient to incorporate by reference: three plats — one illustrating the location of roads as of January 29, 1942; the-, other two showing the status of roads, subject to a minor variation, as of November 30, 1955 — August 13, 1956, and' after the completion of the tripartite-, agreement dated September 1, 1954.

*759

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

Related

Marble Technologies, Inc. v. Mallon
773 S.E.2d 155 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 2015)
Blackhawk Development Corp. v. Village of Dexter
700 N.W.2d 364 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2005)
United Food & Commercial Workers International Union Local 400 v. National Labor Relations Board
222 F.3d 1030 (D.C. Circuit, 2000)
Paul G. Shultz v. Department of Army, United States of America
10 F.3d 649 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
In re Duffy
444 A.2d 301 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1982)
Wymbs v. Arvida Corp.
48 Fla. Supp. 110 (Palm Beach County Circuit Court, 1978)
United States v. Parkway Towers, Inc.
282 F. Supp. 341 (E.D. Virginia, 1968)
Smith v. Board of Supervisors
109 S.E.2d 501 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1959)
Smith v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY
109 S.E.2d 501 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1959)
James v. Duckworth
170 F. Supp. 342 (E.D. Virginia, 1959)
National Ass'n v. Patty
159 F. Supp. 503 (E.D. Virginia, 1958)
NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADVANCE. OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Patty
159 F. Supp. 503 (E.D. Virginia, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
152 F. Supp. 757, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-v-american-oil-company-vaed-1957.