Miles v. Bodenheim
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the CourtWillson, C. J.
(after stating the facts as above). Appellant insists that the easement claimed by appellees Melton and Bodenheim could have been created only by an express grant thereof by a deed duly executed by Rogers and his wife, or by ,a grant thereof the law would inqply from the necessity of the case, or from long and continuous use of the alley as a way. Appellant further insists that it did not appear from either said ap-pellees’ pleadings or the evidence that an easement as claimed was created in either of those ways, and that the trial court therefore erred when he overruled appellant’s demurrer…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- City of Indianapolis v. KingsburyIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. PattersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Phillips v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1864
- Carmon v. . DickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Powers v. HeffernanIllinois Supreme Court · 1908
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Daniel v. Fox, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1996
- Ulbricht v. FriedsamTexas Supreme Court · 1959
- Barrick v. GilletteCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1945
- David Hamrick, Maggie Hamrick, Sue Bertram and Steve Bertram v. Tom Ward and Betsey WardTexas Supreme Court · 2014
- Adams v. Norsworthy Ranch, Ltd., Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)1998
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.