MALCOLM R. WILLIAMS AND HARRISON H. MCDONALD, APPELLANTS,
v.
E. A. HICKSON, 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 decision to sustain a demurrer and dismiss a property owner's complaint seeking a mandatory injunction. The court found the second amended bill of complaint adequately alleged the requirements for establishing a prescriptive easement for ingress and egress.
Yes, the court held that the allegations in the second amended bill of complaint met the requirements for pleading entitlement to the relief sought, specifically a mandatory injunction.
“In this case two property owners, after demurrers having been sustained to a bill of complaint and an amended bill of complaint, filed a seconded amended bill of complaint alleging that they had acquired by prescription the easement over a certain strip of land as a road or way of egress and ingress to and from their property.”
This quote introduces the parties and the core allegation of the case regarding a prescriptive easement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo property owners alleged they had acquired a prescriptive easement over a strip of land for ingress and egress to their property. They claimed no o…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ingress And Egress cases and more on FLexlaw
Buford, J.
In this case two property owners, after demurrers having been sustained to a bill of complaint and an amended bill of complaint, filed a seconded amended bill of complaint alleging that they had acquired by prescription the easement over a certain strip of land as a road or way of egress and ingress to and from their property. It is alleged that there is no other way of ingress or egress to the houses and lots of the complainants except by or through the road or way referred to and that such road or way has been used by the public-and by the owners of the adjacent property for more than twenty years last past. It is alleged that the road or way has been obstructed by the defendants and that the complainants have been damaged, and are damaged and injured in a manner and in a degree differing from the injury accruing to the general public.
Demurrer was interposed to the second amended bill of complaint. The same was sustained and the bill dismissed from which order appeal was taken.
The allegations of the second amended bill of complaint appear to meet the requirements of pleading to sho\v the complainants are entitled to the relief, mandatory injunction, as sought in this case. See Zetrouer v. Zetrouer, 89 Fla. 253, and authorities there cited.
On authority of the opinion above referred to the order sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the second amended bill of complaint should be reversed and it is so ordered. Reversed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum, J., concur. Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.