Stone v. CoatsStone v. Coats
Epitomized Opinion
This was an action to have the court to constru the nature, extеnt and location of a driveway, unde a deed. The action. wаs originally brought in th Common Pleas Court оf Lorain County, where th plaintiff sought an injunction against the defendant! from obstructing a driveway. As the injunctio was granted the defendants prosecuted an appea One Barson owned a certain lot in Lorain. In 190Í he sold a strip of land off the side of this lot t the plaintiff Stone. The deed contained a grаnt c a perpetual right of wаy over the grantor’s premise .but thе deed did not describe the location of th driveway by metes and bounds. However, the ev: dence did show that in 1921 Barson sold his remair ing land to thе defendants, and that the plainti: hаd maintained a drive diagonally across this re maining strip without objeсtion on the part of Bai son from 1908 to the time the last conveyance wa made in 1921. Shortly after the defendants ot tained possеssion of the premises, they built a fеnc across the driveway. In sustainin'" the decree c the lower сourt, the Court of Appeal hеld:
1. Where a conveyancе of a right of way doe not describe or define it by metes and bounds, th grantee is entitled to a convenient, reasonable an aсcessible way.
2. Where a right of way is granted but its loca tion is not definеd, it may become fixed by use an аcts of acquiescencе of the parties, and when one fixed by used, it cannot be changеd by a subsequen owner of the servient estate without the consent с the owner of the dominant estаte.
3. Under'the evidence of this case, the drivewa as granted in the deed gave the plaintiff the rigb to drive diagonally across the defendants’ lot.