Reddick v. Williams

Singley, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In March, 1962, Mr. and Mrs. Williams purchased some 16 acres of land in Carroll County. Shortly before, and apparently as a condition of this acquisition, there had been conveyed to them by Guy S. Form wait and wife, over land owned by the Formwalts: “* * * a Right-of-Way, 12 feet wide, from Route #84 * * * extending over the existing roadway to a point 165 feet, more or less, from the land [which the Williamses later acquired] * * * for the purpose of ingress, egress and regress between said Route #84 and the said land * * About six months later, the Formwalts sold their property to Mr. and Mrs. Reddick, the appellants here and defendants below. In 1964, the Reddicks placed a gate across the right-of-way, at a point where it enters Route 84, and at a later time, installed another gate, about half way between Route 84 and the Williams’ property.

There ⁶⁸⁰ is an intimation that there may even have been a third gate. Williams went to see Reddick to complain about the gates, but the gates remained in place. In April of 1969 Reddick locked the front gate for three nights, but removed the lock when Williams protested. Later in that year, the Williamses sought equitable relief in the Circuit Court for Carroll County.

From a decree ordering the Reddicks, to remove the gates and enjoining them from obstructing the right-of-way, the Reddicks have appealed. The rule of the Maryland cases was stated in Bishields v. Campbell, 200 Md. 622, 624 , 91 A. 2d 922 (1952) : “* * * we think it appropriate to state the general principle that a right of way is merely a right of passage and the owner of the land is entitled to use it for any purpose that does not unreasonably interfere with the use of the easement. Hence, it is held in this State that, in the absence of an agreement or surrounding circumstances to the contrary, the owner of the servient estate has the right to maintain gates on a right of way at the points where the way begins and terminates. Baker v. Frick, 45 Md. 337, 341 , 24 Am.

Rep. 506 . Of course, if a grant, construed in connection with the surrounding circumstances, shows an intention that no gate shall be erected, such a showing of intention is controlling. It is equally true that the fact that a gate was standing at the time of a grant is a circumstance that strengthens the, presumption that the parties contemplated that a gate might thereafter be maintained.” See also, Simon Distributing Corp. v. Bay Ridge Civic Ass’n, Inc., 207 Md. 472 , 114 A. 2d 829 (1955) ; 3 Tiffany on Real Property § 812 at 357 (3d ed. 1939) ; Restatement, Property § 486 at 3027 (1944); 3 Powell on Real Property § 415 at 498 (1970) ; 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses § 23 at 434 (1966) ; 28 C.J.S. Easements § 98(1) (b) at 781 (1941). ⁶⁸¹ The resolution of the problem presented by this case requires some further consideration of the testimony, in an effort to ascertain the circumstances surrounding the grant and the intention of the parties. Mr. Williams testified that he first visited the property in November of 1961.

His recollection was quite clear that at that time he “opened and shut no gates,” that “You entered from the macadam road, the Uniontown Road, you went a short distance, I would vary a guess, maybe, fifty to a hundred feet, something of that nature, you dropped down into a cut. The road through the years had made a cut down through the field.” He said that “the car would go completely down in the cut” and that “the right of way was fenced on both sides either with good fence or with fence that was in the process of falling down.” On cross-examination Williams admitted that there had been a removable wire, apparently a part of an electric fence, across the right-of-way, until about 1963. He was not specific about where it was, but it is clear that it was not at the entrance from Union-town Road (Route 84). According to Williams, after the property had been acquired by the Reddicks, the cut was filled in, so that the land which had been separated by the cut became one pasture, used permanently as such.

This occurred sometime before August, 1964, when the gate was installed at the entrance to Uniontown Road. When asked why he objected to the gate, Williams said it was dangerous, “Because you have to stop out on the hard