Aspinwall v. Enterprise Development Company et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia1927-09-29No. No. 5608

165 Ga. 83

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment of the lower court was reversed. The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to enjoin the defendants from obstructing the alley, as the plaintiff possessed a private easement appurtenant to his lot and had properly sought injunctive relief before the obstruction was completed.

When a developer subdivides land into lots and records a plat showing streets and alleys, purchasers of lots that border those alleys receive a private easement allowing access and egress across the alley. This easement right exists regardless of whether the alley runs between two streets or terminates as a dead end, and a property owner may seek an injunction to prevent others from blocking the alley without permission. The owner's right to protect this easement by injunction is not defeated by the fact that they chose to use an alternative route for access instead of the alley itself, nor does it matter if the person attempting to close the alley holds a separate deed to that portion of the alley given by the original developer.

In this case, the lower court improperly refused to issue an injunction preventing the defendant from constructing a wall across the alley. Although the defendants had begun construction of an apartment building before being put on notice of the plaintiff's easement right, they continued work with full knowledge of the alley's existence. The timing of the plaintiff's suit before the actual obstruction was completed, combined with the defendants' continued construction despite knowing of the easement, meant the defendants proceeded at their own risk. The court erred in allowing concerns about delay or laches to override the plaintiff's right to judicial protection of the easement.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether purchasers of platted lots acquire private easement rights in adjacent alleys shown on the plat
Whether an easement owner may obtain injunctive relief despite not personally using the easement
Whether prior notice of an easement's existence affects a defendant's right to complete construction that obstructs it
Whether delay in pursuing legal action constitutes laches sufficient to bar injunctive relief

Procedural posture

The trial court refused to issue an injunction preventing the defendants from obstructing an alley, and the plaintiff appealed that decision.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. If an owner of a tract of land divides it into lots, streets, and alleys, records a plat thereof, and conveys lots by reference to the plat which abuts a particular alley, the grantee in virtue of the grant will acquire a private easement in the alley as appurtenant to the land for the purpose of affording ingress and egress to and from the lots. Bayard v. Hargrove, 45 Ga. 342; Ford v. Harris, 95 Ga. 97 (22 S. E. 144); Murphy v. Harker, 115 Ga. 77 (41 S. E. 585); Hamil v. Pone, 160 Ga. 774 (129 S. E. 94). The principle applies whether the alley extends from one street to another or is a cul de sac extending only from one street to a terminus at the line of a given lot in the subdivision. Schreck v. Blun, 131 Ga. 489 (62 S. E. 705); Ashford v. Walters, 160 Ga. 350 (127 S. E. 758).

2. The property right to an easement of the character mentioned in the foregoing note may be protected by injunction as against another person who without consent of the owner attempts to close the alley. Schreck v. Blun, supra.

(а) This applies although the obstruction begins at the line of the owner next to the blind end of the alley, and the person attempting to close the alley owns all the lots on both sides of the alley towards the blind end and holds a junior separate deed from the proprietor of the subdivision to that portion of the alley, and the deed was executed at a time when the proprietor still owned the lot abutting the blind end of the alley and expressed the assent of the grantor to such obstruction.

(b) The fact that the owner of the easement did not actually use the alley but used a driveway from the front of his lot would not defeat his right to an injunction to prevent closing the alley.

3. Where the plat of the subdivision shows a building line on the lots 32 feet back from the street on which the lots front and an apartment house is commenced and partly completed at large expense before it is discovered by an adjoining proprietor that one corner of the building extends 4-1/2 inches beyond the building line, equity will not enjoin the further completion of the building at the suit of the adjoining proprietor on the ground that the building was an encroachment over the building line. The court did not err in refusing an injunction against encroachment upon the building line. 32 C. J. 215, § 334. Atkinson and Hines, JJ., dissent from the above ruling, because the uncontradicted evidence shows that the defendants through gross negligence, or deliberately, constructed the building so as to encroach over the building line.

4. The facts of this case do not show such laches upon the part of the plaintiff as would bar his right to an injunction to prevent closing the alley. The suit to enjoin the obstruction having been filed before the alley was obstructed, the continuance of the work by the defendants with full knowledge of the existence of the alley was at their peril, and the fact that a wall was constructed across the alley before the interlocutory hearing would not be ground for refusal of the injunction. Russell, C. J., and Gilbert, J., dissent from the ruling in this note.

No. 5608.

September 29, 1927.

5. The court erred in refusing to enjoin obstruction of the alley. Russell, C. J., and Gilbert, J., dissent.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except as above stated, and except Hill, J., absent.

Gillon & Tomlinson, for plaintiff.

W. O. Wilson, for defendants.