Court Opinion

ID: 9584620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:50:46.561894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:33.049271
License: Public Domain

Brailsford, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the able opinion of Justice Lewis, which soundly holds that Mr. Knox abandoned his right, as a purchaser under the sub-division deed, to an easement across the tracts of land lying north of those which he purchased. However, when he acquired title to tract 11 and, later, to the- western portion of tract 12, all of his rights in the segment of the proposed road along the former boundary line between these two tracts merged in his fee. He had no easement in his own land which could have been lost by abandonment, as a mode of divesture of a property right. Pearce v. McClenaghan, 5 Rich. 178, 187, 39 S. C. L. 178, 187. When he conveyed fee simple title to the western portion of tract 12 to the defendant in 1946, he reserved no rights in the land granted. The plaintiff acquired none by his subsequent purchase under defendant’s grantor.
Bussey, J., concurs.