Legal Opinion

Ross v. Thompson

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1881No. 7292PublishedCited by 75 opinions

Erom the Jefferson Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtElliott, C. J.

This action was instituted by the appellee to recover damages for the disturbance of an easement, and to enjoin the appellant from interfering with its free use.

Easements may be acquired either by grant or by prescription, but in whatever manner acquired they are annexed to the dominant estate. It is the land constituting the dominant estate which possesses the easement; not the owner of the land. The easement is not attached to the person; it is part of the estate and passes with it. The enjoyment by a dominant estate of an easement for a sufficient length of time to create a right by…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. President of Cincinnati v. Lessee of WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
  2. Morgan v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
  3. State v. BerdettaIndiana Supreme Court · 1880
  4. Cox v. Louisville, New Albany, & Chicago RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1874
  5. Mayor of Macon v. FranklinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1852

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by75 opinions

  1. City of Indianapolis v. KingsburyIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Cummins v. City of SeymourIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Indiana, Bloomington & Western Railway Co. v. EberleIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
  4. People's Gas Co. v. TynerIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Parish v. KaspareIndiana Supreme Court · 1887

70 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API