Gosnell v. Roberts

Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The order appealed from overruled a demurrer to a hill •of complaint which alleged, in effect, that the defendants conveyed to the plaintiff by deed 'dated May 24th, 1915, exhibited with the bill, a lot of ground located on the east ⁶²⁶ side of Garrison Avenue in Baltimore >and described as. binding on the south, side of an. alley three feet wide; which extended eastwardlv from the avenue to the rear of the lot, and the use of which in' common was granted, by the deed, together with, “all the rights, alleys, ways; waters, advantage®, privilegies and -appurtenances; belonging or in anywise appertaining” to the property conveyed; that at the time of the conveyance the defendants delivered to the plaintiff a drawing of the lot showing the aleys then in' existence which the defendants agreed, in accordance with the previous oral understanding between 'the parties, were appurtenant to the land conveyed by the deed, which drawing was filed with the bill as an exhibit and shows an alley three feet wide connecting at 'tire rear of the granted loit with -the first mentioned alley and extending northwardly to 'an alley ten feet wide which connects with Waldheim Street to ithe west and thus •affords access to plaintiff’s lot from that direction; that those .alleys were “actually laid out and existing” at the time of the purchase by 'and conveyance to the plaintiff, of the lot ■to which they were represented a® being appurtenant; that he would not have purchased the lot without the benefit of the appurtenant alleys then in existence shown on the drawing which the defendants presented; that the defendants-have recently; against the plaintiff’s protest, erected a hedge and wire fence across the end of the alley with which the one along the north side of the plaintiff’s lot immediately connects, and1 previously constructed, 'and .still maintain, a garage which projects into •the bed of the ten-foot alley to the extent of half its width, and the removal of which the: plaintiff has repeatedly demanded; and that the maintenance of the fence .and garage ha® gyeatly impaired the 'availability of the plaintiff’s lot by reducing the width of the-•ten-foot alley, and by wholly obstructing access from hi® property to the three-foot alley forming part of the alley system by which a rear passageway to and from his lot is-provided. An injunction against the continuance of the-obstructions was. proposed by the bill of complaint. ⁶²⁷ The essentia! question to be decided is Whether thie defendants are entitled to -interfer'e with the plaintiff’® use of -alleys which -are alleged by the bill and admitted by the demurrer to have been in -existence -at the time of-the purchase of hi® lot and to have been represented by .the defendants to be appurtenianit ways passing under the conveyance. It is not necessary to- -discuss the -contention that such an eaisement cannot be created or transferred by -oral .agreement, or to determine