Robinson v. Thrailkill
Indiana Supreme Court
Erom tbe Howard Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtElliott, C. J.
The appellees claim to be the owners of a private right of way over the land of the appellant, and they base their claim chiefly on a parol contract made by the-grantor of the appellees with the grantor of the appellant.
The appellant’s counsel are right in asserting that an easement is an interest in land, and that a contract creating such an interest is within the statute of frauds. Richter v. Irwin, 28 Ind. 26; Brumfield v. Carson, 33 Ind. 94 (5 Am. R. 184); Davidson v. Nicholson, 59 Ind. 411; Browne Statute of Frauds, section 232.
If the claim of the appellees rested solely on the words of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- City of Indianapolis v. KingsburyIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Ross v. ThompsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Snowden v. WilasIndiana Supreme Court · 1862
- Cupp v. CampbellIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Parish v. KaspareIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Ellis v. BassettIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
- Nowlin v. WhippleIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Roush v. RoushIndiana Supreme Court · 1900
- Fankboner v. CorderIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
- Cairo, V. & C. Ry. Co. v. BrevoortU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1894
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.