Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of the deeds executed each year. When the intent of the grantor is clear, as here, neither the trial court nor this court can ignore the rights created by the express grant. See Seastrunk v. Walker, 156 S.W.2d 996, 997 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1941, writ ref’d w.o.m.). He intended the easements to be “[appurtenant] to the lands and premises [therein] described”— i.e., appurtenant to the estates described in the deeds to his children. Thus, interpreting all of the deeds executed in the same year as one instrument, we hold as a matter of law that B.D. Douthitt created by express grant an easement in Donna and Cameron to cross James’ property. The easements are appurtenant to Donna’s and Cameron’s tracts. See Stuart v. Larrabee, 14 S.W.2d 316, 319 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1929, writ ref’d) (<HOLDING>). LOCATION That B.D. Douthitt left the exact 
 Holding statements: (A) holding same as to an implied easement appurtenant (B) holding that the burden on the servient estate cannot be increased without the consent of the owners of the servient estate and that the owner of the dominant estate to which the appurtenant easement is attached has no power to convey or expand use of that easement in connection with a tract of land owned by another (C) holding that an easement appurtenant to a freehold estate of a dowager expired with that estate (D) holding that an appurtenant easement is an incident of the estate granted and passes with it (E) holding that an easement agreement and an unrecorded easement plan created an easement
Output (English): holding that an easement appurtenant to a freehold estate of a dowager expired with that estate