United Realty Co. v. Outlaw

Missouri Court of Appeals

United Realty Co. v. Outlaw

522 S.W.2d 100, 1975 Mo. App. LEXIS 1676

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 4, 1975

DocketNo. 36023

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 522 S.W.2d 100 (United Realty Co. v. Outlaw) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United Realty Co. v. Outlaw, 522 S.W.2d 100, 1975 Mo. App. LEXIS 1676 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

STEWART, Judge.

Plaintiff, the owner of an apartment building which is across the alley from property owned by defendants, obtained a mandatory injunction ordering defendants to remove a wall which defendants had constructed across an easement on defendants’ property. Defendants appeal from this judgment.

[101]*101It is conceded that one of defendants’ predecessors in title created an easement by grant in writing to plaintiff’s predecessors in title for the “use and benefit of the present and future owners” of the two tracts of land “their heirs and assigns”. The property was conveyed to defendants subject to the easement.¹ Defendants sought to avoid the effect of the written grant of the easement with the contention that the easement had been abandoned. Ordinarily a written easement agreement is not lost by nonuser. Franck Bros., Inc. v. Rose, 301 S.W.2d 806 (Mo.1957).

We have reviewed the record and find no evidence which would warrant a finding that the easement had been abandoned. The judgment of the trial court is not erroneous and no error of law appears. The case above cited is controlling. A full opinion would have no precedential value.

We affirm in compliance with Rule 84.-16(b).

SMITH, C. J., and KELLY, J., concur.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

STEWART, Judge.

Plaintiff, the owner of an apartment building which is across the alley from property owned by defendants, obtained a mandatory injunction ordering defendants to remove a wall which defendants had constructed across an easement on defendants’ property. Defendants appeal from this judgment.

[101]*101It is conceded that one of defendants’ predecessors in title created an easement by grant in writing to plaintiff’s predecessors in title for the “use and benefit of the present and future owners” of the two tracts of land “their heirs and assigns”. The property was conveyed to defendants subject to the easement.¹ Defendants sought to avoid the effect of the written grant of the easement with the contention that the easement had been abandoned. Ordinarily a written easement agreement is not lost by nonuser. Franck Bros., Inc. v. Rose, 301 S.W.2d 806 (Mo.1957).

We have reviewed the record and find no evidence which would warrant a finding that the easement had been abandoned. The judgment of the trial court is not erroneous and no error of law appears. The case above cited is controlling. A full opinion would have no precedential value.

We affirm in compliance with Rule 84.-16(b).

SMITH, C. J., and KELLY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 S.W.2d 100, 1975 Mo. App. LEXIS 1676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-realty-co-v-outlaw-moctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack