Issue: Is D entitled to a way from necessity over P’s premises?
Holding: Judgment for P. Mere convenience does not require a right to legal necessity.
– The right to implied grant of easement based on necessity is looked upon with
jealousy, construed with strictness, and are not favored except in cases of strict
necessity, and not from mere convenience.
– It has long been the established rule that if one grants a close surrounded by his
own land, or to which he has no access except over his land, he impliedly grants a
right of way over his adjoining lands as incident to the occupation and enjoyment
of the grant
– The same rule applies where there has been a severance of the property and one
portion has been rendered inaccessible except by passing over the other, or by
trespassing on the land of another
– In this case, D’s land has navigable waters on three sides. There is a public right
to travel over these lands and D has not only free use of the waters but has also
erected wharves and owns a steamboat which it uses get from A to B. Though it
might be more convenient to pass over a highway, or across P’s premises rather
than use a boat, this inconvenience is not such as the law requires to constitute a
legal necessity for the way claimed
– There was also no license that D can rely on
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Property Law Cases and are similar to What happened in the case Kinglsey v. Gouldsborough Land Improvement Co.?. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.