Home/Supreme Court of Virginia/Strickland v. Barnes

Strickland v. Barnes

164 S.E.2d 768, 209 Va. 438, 1968 Va. LEXIS 254
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia
DecidedDecember 6, 1968
DocketRecord 6780
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 164 S.E.2d 768 (Strickland v. Barnes) 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
Strickland v. Barnes, 164 S.E.2d 768, 209 Va. 438, 1968 Va. LEXIS 254 (Va. 1968).

Opinion

Gordon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

*439 Defendants James L. Smith, Jr. and Strickland Brothers appeal from a decree permanently enjoining them from fencing-off a 25-foot strip of land owned by Smith and used by the plaintiffs for access to their properties. The issue is whether the deeds to the plaintiffs’ predecessors in title granted them easements to use the 2 5-foot strip for ingress and egress by motor vehicle.

For an understanding of the facts, a map dated March 14, 1947 (the “1947 map”) is reproduced on the following page. The map shows the 25-foot strip, the fence the defendants desire to erect, and the properties owned by plaintiffs Jack P. Barnes, William T. Pearson and Creed Miniard. (Note: Unfortunately, north is at the bottom of this map and all other maps introduced in evidence in this case.)

We will consider first the right of plaintiffs Barnes and Pearson to use the 25-foot strip. They rely on a deed dated September 21, 1946, from defendant Smith’s predecessor in title (James L. Smith) to their predecessor in title (W. F. Magann Corporation). The plaintiffs interpret that deed as granting an easement for ingress and egress across the 25-foot strip. Conversely, the defendants interpret the deed as granting at most an easement to use a railroad siding,, if a siding should be constructed on the 25-foot strip. The resolution of this controversy depends, therefore, upon the proper interpretation of that deed.

The deed, which conveyed to Magann Lot No. 6 on the plat reproduced on the second succeeding page, recited: “This deed is made subject to the easements and restrictions shown on the said plat. . .” .

This plat (the “1945 plat”) shows the following easements: the “Sidewalk” adjoining County Street at the bottom of the plat, and the nearby “Driveway”; the “Reserved 30' Driveway” (now Third Avenue) in the center of the plat; and the 25-foot strip “Reserved for future R.R. Siding” at the top of the plat.

Defendants Smith and Strickland Brothers contend that James L. Smith did not convey to Magann any easement across the 25-foot strip, but that Smith merely reserved the strip for his use as a railroad siding. We do not agree.

The deed recites: “This deed is made subject to the easements and restrictions shown on the said plat. . . ” , 1 Because James L. Smith owned fee simple title to the 25-foot strip, a reservation of that strip

*440

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

Related

Becker Building Company, LLC v. Scott W. Keller
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2025
Wimmer v. R&R Joint Venture, Inc.
93 Va. Cir. 354 (Botetourt County Circuit Court, 2016)
Kline v. Vickers
93 Va. Cir. 121 (Amherst County Circuit Court, 2016)
Lee v. Zom Clarendon, L.P.
665 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. Virginia, 2009)
Burdette v. BRUSH MOUNTAIN ESTATES, LLC
682 S.E.2d 549 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 2009)
Chester E. Miller v. Linda S. Miller
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2007
Linda S. Miller v. Chester E. Miller
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2007
Pyramid Development, L.L.C. v. D&J Associates
553 S.E.2d 725 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 2001)
D & J Associates v. Pyramid Development, L.L.C.
52 Va. Cir. 496 (Richmond County Circuit Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
164 S.E.2d 768, 209 Va. 438, 1968 Va. LEXIS 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strickland-v-barnes-va-1968.