Legal Opinion

Smith v. Dennedy

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 1, 1923No. Docket No. 14PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.

(aftev stating the facts). The crucial question in the case is the character of the easement fixed by the amended decree of July 26, 1904, whether an easement appurtenant or an easement in gross. Incidentally the extent of the easement is involved with the further question of whether defendant and his predecessor in title have acquired rights by adverse *381user since the entry of the decree. While some courts look with disfavor upon and decline to recognize easements in gross strictly speaking (9 R. C. L. p. 739; 32 Yale Law Journal, p.- 813), this court recognizes their existence and the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Dennis v. WilsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
  2. St. Cecelia Society v. Universal Car & Service Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Lathrop v. ElsnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Borst v. . EmpieNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
  5. Walz v. WalzMichigan Supreme Court · 1894

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Heydon v. Mediaone of Southeast Michigan, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007
  2. Greve v. CaronMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Marlette Auto Wash LLC v. Van Dyke Sc Properties LLCMichigan Supreme Court · 2018
  4. Evans v. Holloway Sand and Gravel, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1981
  5. First National Trust & Savings Bank v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1938

6 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