(DOWNLOAD) "Groshean Et Al. v. Dillmont Realty Co." by Supreme Court of Montana " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Groshean Et Al. v. Dillmont Realty Co.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 07, 1932
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 70 KB
Description
Easements ? Doorway in Party-wall ? Quieting Title ? Acquisition of Title by Prescription ? Complaint ? Evidence ? Sufficiency ? Presumptions ? Inception of Use ? Abandonment ? Easement Ripening into Appurtenance ? Manner of Divestiture of Title ? Applicability of Doctrine of "Tacking" ? Burden of Proof. Easements ? Quieting Title ? Doorway in Party-wall ? Title by Prescription ? Complaint ? Evidence ? Sufficiency. 1. Complaint in an action to quiet title to an easement in a doorway through a party-wall and a stairway leading to the second floor of plaintiffs building, acquired by prescription, held not - Page 228 open to the assertion of insufficiency as showing that the use of doorway and stairway was in its inception permissive, ? in effect a revocable license; held, further, that the evidence showed that plaintiffs predecessor in interest began his use under a claim of right. Same ? Prescription ? When Presumption Obtains That Inception of Use Under Claim of Right ? Burden of Proof on Defendant to Show Contrary. 2. Where there is no evidence as to the inception of the use of an alleged easement, the presumption is that it was under a claim of right, and in order to overcome that presumption and to save his title from the encumbrance of an easement, defendant servient owner has the burden of showing that the use was permissive only. Same ? Title by Prescription as Effective as Though Evidenced by Deed. 3. The title to an easement acquired by prescription is as effective as though evidenced by a deed. Same ? When Mere Nonuser Raises No Presumption of Abandonment. 4. Irrespective of how an easement was acquired, mere nonuser for a less time than that required by the statute of limitations for the perfection of the easement raises no presumption of abandonment. Same ? In What Manner Only Right, After Easement Ripening into Appurtenance, may be Divested. 5. After an easement ? in the instant case the right to use a doorway in a party-wall and a stairway leading therefrom to the second floor of claimants premises ? had become an appurtenance to the latters property, his right, or that of his predecessor in interest thereto, could only be divested by deed, prescription or abandonment. Same ? Statute Relating to Title by Prescription Applicable to Easements. 6. Section 6818, Revised Codes 1921, defining "title by prescription," applies to an easement in real property as well as to the fee. Same ? Applicability of Doctrine of "Tacking" of Prescriptive Periods. 7. In an action seeking confirmation of an easement acquired by prescription, contention that the doctrine of "tacking" of prescriptive periods is inapplicable where no mention is made of the right claimed in the various deeds to the property may not be sustained, the doctrine being permissible when there is a privity between the successive users of the easement, and there is a sufficient privity as to the inchoate easement if the enjoyment thereof was continuous and under the same claim of title. Same ? Prescription ? Oral Assertions of Adverse User by Claimant and Predecessors in Interest Held Unnecessary Under Facts. 8. The fact that claimant of an easement, or his predecessors in interest, never asserted by word of mouth that he, or they, made use of it under a claim of right and adversely to defendant, held of no importance, oral communications to that effect not having been necessary under the facts. - Page 229