This is a suit in equity to ascertain and determine title to real estate, under Section 527.150 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., and for a judgment, in accordance with Section 527.-020 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., declaring that plaintiffs’ Lot 19, Block 22 of University Park in University City, is not bound by a certain recorded instrument in writing purporting to create an easement. Defendants’ answer claimed an easement over plaintiffs’ lot by the terms of that instrument, and also by prescription, and by necessity. The Circuit Court, declining to pass upon the effect of the written instrument, adjudged that plaintiffs were the fee simple owners of Lot 19, subject to an easement by prescription and a way of necessity in favor of defendants over the east 10 feet of Lot 19, for ingress and egress of automobiles as a driveway; that plaintiffs had no easement over defendants’ Lot 20, and enjoined plaintiffs from obstructing or interfering with defendants’ use of the easement and way of necessity. Plaintiffs appealed on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment of the trial court; that the judgment creates a cloud on the titles of the lots of the respective parties. Plaintiffs ask for a declaration that defendants have no easement either by 'agreement, perscription or necessity, and for a dissolution of the injunction.
Under the pleadings and the decree of the trial court establishing an easement over plaintiffs’ lot, title to real estate is involved, and we have jurisdiction under the Constitution. Jacobs v. Brewster,
In an equity action we review the entire record upon both the law and the evidence, and reach our own conclusions as to the facts, determining the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given the evidence, giving due deference to the findings of the trial chancellor, where proper. Long v. Kyte, Mo.Sup.,
These are the pertinent facts: Separate apartment buildings were erected on the south side of the 7200 block on Amherst Street in University City on Lots 19 and 20, Block 22, University Park. Lot 19 lies immediately west of and adjoins Lot 20. Two-car garages were erected at the rear of each of the buildings. There is no alley at the rear of the premises. The only access to the garages is a driveway from the front. The distance between the walls of the two buildings is 14 feet. The driveway between the buildings is 14 feet wide. Ten feet of this width lies on Lot 19 and 4 feet of this width lies on Lot 20. From Amherst Street to the building line the driveway is only 10 feet wide. This part of the driveway lies altogether on Lot 19. Ingress and egress to and from defendants’ garage over this entrance therefore is impossible without passing, over plaintiffs’ land. While ingress and egress to and from plaintiffs’ garage may *737 be physically possible without passing over defendants’ 4-foot strip and the concrete apron in front of defendants’ garage doors, it is not feasible or practical. Rosen-bloom’s automobile, 15 feet long, could be driven into his garage by driving straight down his 10-foot strip to the wall at the rear of the premises, then backing into the garage, but this would be difficult, awkward and inconvenient. It would be an engineering feat to drive a second automobile into and out of plaintiffs’ garage without encroaching upon defendants’ 4-foot strip. It is of great advantage to drivers using plaintiffs’ garage to have the use of defendants’ 4-foot strip and the concrete apron in front of defendants’ garage. Sam Gross-man and wife were grantees in a deed to Lot 20 dated February 19,1945, acknowledged February 23, 1945, delivered March 20, 1945, and recorded on March 22, 1945 at 10:40 a. m. Guy C. Chamberlain and wife were grantees in a deed to Lot 19 by deed dated April 18, 1945, acknowledged May 25, 1945, and recorded May 25,1945. On March 14, 1945, before the delivery of these deeds, the Grossmans and Chamberlains, intending to become next-door neighbors, entered into an agreement, Exhibit 1, which follows:
“Agreement
“Whereas, Samuel Grossman and Rebecca E. Grossman, his wife, are the owners of the following described property situated in the County of St. Louis and State of Missouri, to wit:
“Lot 20 in Block 22 of University Park, a subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 16 pages 38 and 39 of the St. Louis County records. And
“Whereas, Guy C. Chamberlain and Genevieve E. Chamberlain, his wife are the owners of the following described property situated in the County of St. Louis and State of Missouri, to wit:
“Lot 19 in Block 22 of University Park, a subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 16 Pages 38 and 39 of the St. Louis County records. And
“Whereas, there is a driveway between the two parcels of improved property above described serving as entrance to the garages on each property;
“Now, Therefore, in consideration of the mutual benefit to arise to the future owners of said lots, the parties hereto establish and create an easement over the West four feet two inches, more or less, of Lot 20 and over the East ten feet, more or less, of Lot 19 of the above described properties extending, from the front concrete walk to the rear of said lots and over the aprons adjoining the front of the garage doors on the rear portions of said lots, for ingress and egress of automobiles as a driveway for the benefit of the present and future owners of said properties. The owners of the above described properties further agree not to allow parking of automobiles in the area reserved for the joint use of the driveway between the two buildings. The present and future owners agree to divide the expenses for the maintenances or repairs of the driveway in the area between the two buildings from the concrete walk to the rear of said lots.
“In Witness Whereof said parties have hereunto set their hands this 14th day of March, 1945.
“Guy C. Chamberlain
“Genevieve E. Chamberlain
“Samuel Grossman
“Rebecca E. Grossman”
This instrument, acknowledged in due form, was filed for record with the Recorder of Deeds March 22, 1945, at 10:41 a. m. From the time defendants moved into the property in June, 1945 to the date of trial on May 9, 1960 defendants used the driveway in accordance with the rights reserved under the provisions of Exhibit 1. From 1940 to 1947 a tenant who lived in defendants’ building used the driveway, without any special agreement. Servicemen, such as electricians, pickup trucks and grocery trucks, used the driveway through the years. Plaintiffs Rosenbloom and Litwack, and *738 their wives, became the owners of Lot 19 on May 26, 1953 and moved into the property in June, 1953. Nothing was said about the driveway by the Grossmans or plaintiffs when the latter moved in, but thereafter plaintiffs began to use the driveway for other purposes than ingress and egress to the garage. Rosenbloom parked his car in the driveway at the back door of his house to load and unload things. A portable plastic swimming pool was placed in the driveway for the use of Litwack’s children. Rosenbloom broke the concrete and installed two-inch sleeves or pipes in the driveway to receive removable clothes poles and used the driveway for the hanging of clothes to dry. Grossman protested and in reply Rosenbloom said, “You stay on your side, on your, four feet, and we’ll do what we want on our ten feet.” Both parties consulted counsel and on October 19,1953 plaintiffs’ counsel wrote Grossman a letter demanding the payment of $5 per month for the use of the driveway. Grossman did not pay, continued to use the driveway as before, and thereafter made repairs to the driveway over the major portion of the length of the driveway, “clear across” its 14-foot width, at a cost of $495. Grossman made demand upon plaintiffs for their share of the cost, and upon refusal to pay filed suit against plaintiffs. In that suit plaintiffs counterclaimed in two counts. Count I sought a declaratory judgment declaring the invalidity of the easement. Count II, in the alternative, sought reimbursement from defendants, under the terms of the easement, for one half the sums spent by plaintiffs repairing the driveway. That suit is now being held in abeyance pending the outcome of the instant litigation.
In their brief plaintiffs as appellants first make the point that the evidence was insufficient to establish prescriptive rights in defendants by adverse user, or that the way over Lot 19 was a way of necessity. We do not dwell on the questions whether defendants have prescriptive rights, or a way of necessity, in the use of the east 10 feet of Lot 19, because we are convinced that the rights of the parties are governed by Exhibit 1.
While ordinarily easements are created by grant or prescription, they may be acquired by agreement. 17A Am.Jur. Easements, § 27; 28 C.J.S. Easements §§ 23, 28; Jones on Easements, § 104. Where the owners of adjoining lots contract for reciprocal easements which enhance the usefulness and value of their respective properties and entitle each to use the property of the other for the purposes of ingress and egress, as a driveway, “the way is annexed as an easement to their lands, and by a subsequent conveyance by either, his grantee takes the benefit of the right of way which his grantor had, and holds his land subject to the burden impo'sed by the agreement of the original owners.” Jones on Easements, § 104. Easement agreements of this general nature may be enforced in equity by one of the owners, St. Louis Safe Deposit & Savings Bank v. Kennett Estate,
Plaintiffs object that the consideration recited in Exhibit 1 (“the mutual benefit to arise to the future owners of said lots”) was no consideration at all, because plaintiffs have sufficient access to their garage by using their own 10-foot strip, without using the 4-foot strip in defendants’ lot; that there was no benefit to plaintiffs; that plaintiffs’ lot was burdened without benefit, and defendants’ lot was benefited without burden; that with no mutuality in the agreement, the consideration fails. The whole of the testimony on this issue, considered in connection with the plat of the premises and the several excellent and illuminating photographs of the garage entrances and areaway in question, convinces us that there is no merit in plaintiffs’ claim that the easement over Lot 20 confers no benefit upon them. Grossman testified that people entering or leaving plaintiffs’ garage “use the entire portion of the driveway” in getting in and getting out; that “[N]o car can get in or get out from either garage without using the entire apron — my part and their part.” Rosenbloom testified that his car is 15 feet long; that the way hf entered his garage was to drive straight down the 10-foot strip “all the way to the wall, and back into the garage.” Evidently such maneuvering was rarely undertaken, for Ros-enbloom only “occasionally” used the garage, “when the weather was bad,” and admitted that “here lately” he had been using the garage for storage of materials cleaned out of the basement. Pressed on the question, Rosenbloom could not remember whether he had put his automobile in the garage as many as ten times in the past seven years. We conclude that ingress and egress to and from the garages on Lots 19 and 20 in an automobile is a practical impossibility unless an automobile driver uses the parts of both lots described in Exhibit 1; that the owners of Lot 19 were benefited by the easement, and that the mutual covenants constituted a sufficient consideration.
Plaintiffs strenuously object that the parties to Exhibit 1 were mere strangers to the title, neither owning the property at the time of its execution; that an easement, being an interest in real estate, can be conveyed in no other way than “by deed executed by any person having authority to convey the same, or by his agent or attorney * under the provisions of RSMol939, § 3401, in effect at the time of the execution of Exhibit 1; that the burden was upon defendants to prove, but defendants failed to prove, that the Chamberlains were the owners of the property when Exhibit 1 was signed or had authority to sign Exhibit 1 as the agents or attorneys of the owner. Plaintiffs regard Exhibit 1, if valid at all, as nothing more than a mere private agreement between the defendants and Chamberlains, not binding upon plaintiffs. Defendants’ answer alleged that the parties who executed Exhibit 1 were the owners of their re
*740
spective lots on March 14, 1945, the date Exhibit 1 was signed, and claim they made a prima facie case of ownership by introducing Exhibit 1 in evidence. They say the effect of § 3435, RSMo1939, was to make the certificates of the notaries who took the acknowledgments of the signatures on Exhibit 1 “evidence of all the facts recited therein,” including the recitals of ownership, citing Sanders v. Raster, Mo.Sup.,
Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed insofar as it (1) finds that plaintiffs are the fee simple owners of Lot 19, subject to an easement; (2) describes the easement; (3) finds that defendants are the fee simple owners of Lot 20; (4) grants injunctive relief; and (5) assesses the costs against plaintiffs, but is reversed insofar as it (a) finds that defendants’ rights rest in prescription or necessity; (b) finds that plaintiffs had no easement over Lot 20, and (c) fails to declare the rights of parties under Exhibit 1; and the cause is remanded with directions to the circuit court to set aside its judgment and decree of August 24, 1960 and enter a new judgment and de *741 cree as of that date consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.
PER CURIAM.
The foregoing opinion by HOUSER, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.
All of the Judges concur.