Brief Fact Summary. In this case the Plaintiff Castellaw had easements to land granted by the lower court and Defendant appealed on the basis that the easements should not have been granted.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. An easement was created here, even though the words in the deed are not words of inheritance or of legal character normally found in the creation of easements.
Issue. Does the reservation of the right to use the driveway reserved by Stapp pass to her devisee Plaintiff such that an easement is recognized?
Held. Yes. Reasons below:
There was no possibility of repugnance or conflict between the grant as a whole and the reservation of the driveway. The ordinary reader of the instrument would not be confused about what the grantor meant to alienate and what she intended to keep, and the Court refused to require that she expressly disclaim the possibility of a conflict.
The specific character of the reservation is evident from the limited physical area affected, the exact description of the area, its location at the very edge of the lot, the limited amount of rights reserved, and the fact that the rights were consistent with the usage of the property.
The easement will be considered to be an appurtenance of the lot upon which the gas station sits. The better rule is that neither words of inheritance nor other words of art are essential to the valid reservation of an appurtenant easement, even one that is unlimited.
The law reads into the instrument that which the circumstances show both grantor and grantee must have intended, had they given the obvious facts of the transaction proper consideration.View Full Point of Law