JOHN SEWELL AND E. G. SEWELL, PARTNERS, DOING BUSINESS AS JOHN SEWELL & BRO., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN M. BURDINE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's dismissal of an injunction, holding that a formal agreement to create an alleyway established a binding easement, not a mere license, and could not be unilaterally revoked.
Yes, the agreement created a binding easement, not a mere license, and thus the subsequent occupant could not unilaterally close the alley.
“We regard the agreement as one creating an easement over lots one and two, each lot is burdened by the agreement with an easement over it for the benefit of the owner or occupant of the owner, one which may be extinguished of course by abandonment or mutual agreement.”
Establishes the court's interpretation of the agreement as creating an easement.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Sewell & Bro. sought an injunction to prevent John M. Burdine from obstructing an alleyway. The alleyway was established by a formal agreement un…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Ellis, J.
John Sewell & Bro. sought to enjoin John M. Burdine from closing or obstructing, an alley across the end of lot one occupied' by Burdine extending to and across lot two occupied by Sewell & Bro.
Upon application by complainant for an injunction the bill was dismissed and Sewell & Bro. appealed.
The agreement under which the alleyway was established was under the seal of the párties thereto who at the time owned the two lots respectively. Years afterward Burdine became the occupant of lot one as the tenant of the grantee of the former owner and party to the agreement, and seeks to close the alley without the consent of Sewell & Bro.
We regard the agreement as one creating an easement over lots one and two, each lot is burdened by the agreement with an easement over it for the benefit of the owner or occupant of the owner, one which may be extinguished of course by abandonment or mutual agreement.
The agreement constituted more than a mere license and if it bore only the significance which counsel for defendant claims there would have been no purpose in executing the formal agreement which the parties entered into to create the alleywa/. The order appealed from is reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor and West, J. J., concur. Whitfield, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burdine v. Sewell, 92 Fla. 375 (Fla. 1926)…Strum, J., dissenting. — This case was previously before this Court on appeal from an order of the chancellor sustaining a demurrer and dismissing the bill of complaint. Sewell v. Burdine, 80 Fla. 718; 87 South. Rep. 144. In construing, at that time, the agreement here in controversy, this Court said: “We regard the agreement as one creating an easement over Lots 1 and 2, each lot is burdened by the agreement with an easement over it for the bene…1 / 2
-
Yiannis B. Antoniadis v. Earca, N.V., 442 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)….1976); Board of Public Instruction of Dade County v. Town of Bay Harbor Islands, 81 So. 2d 637 (Fla.1955); Powers v. Scobie, 60 So. 2d 738 (Fla.1952); Barton v. Moline Properties, Inc., 121 Fla. 683, 694, 164 So. 551, 556 (1935); Sewell v. Burdine, 80 Fla. 718, 87 So. 143 (1920). We must reverse the final judgment, however, on the cross-appeal as the award of parking spaces to the appellant [in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the relief ordered in the final judgment] was entirely unrelated to the subject matter o…