Court Opinion

ID: 9831371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:01:48.820973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:34.026477
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Implied easements are based upon the presumed intent of the parties. They are implied to carry into effect such intention. Alley v. Carleton, 29 Tex. 74, 94 Am.Dec. 260.
Upon the facts found by the trial court, it is a most reasonable inference that when the bank conveyed lot 8 to Mrs. Paden it was the intention of the parties to the deed that the bank and the subsequent purchasers of the other lots should have the right to continue the use of the flume across lot 8 as a necessary part of the water distributing system for all the lots in the subdivided tract. The facts found plainly indicate such intention.
The burden rested upon appellee of showing the necessity for the easement asserted. 9 R.C.L. 754, § 21; Texas Western Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 83 Tex. 153, 156, 18 S.W. 325; Williams v. Kuykendall (Tex.Civ.App.) 151 S.W. 629; Bretzke v. Gode (Tex.Civ.App.) 289 S.W. 111.
As was said in the original opinion, the easement in question cannot be regarded as one of strict necessity for the findings show that* when the bank conveyed to Mrs. Paden it retained the title to lots 6 and 7 and at great expense water could have been conveyed across the highway and over one of those lots if permission to cross the highway there could havq been obtained. It would seem such permission is granted by article 7585, R.S. In any event there is no finding that such permission could not be obtained from the proper authorities and the burden of so showing rested upon appellee.
In implying an easement by grant, our courts have adopted the rule of reasonable rather than strict necessity. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Ry. Co. v. Cunningham (Tex.Civ.App.) 273 S.W. 697, and the Texas cases discussed in the opinion.
But the easement here asserted is that it was by implication a reserved one, and since it is of that nature, the question is whether it will be implied when the necessity therefor is reasonable rather than strict. As stated in the original opinion, the courts of this state are not definitely committed to the rule of strict necessity in the case of implied easements by reservation. In the original consideration of the appeal we regarded the question as a doubtful one, and still so regard it. But we adhere to the view that upon the facts here presented the easement should be implied because of reasonable necessity therefor. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Ry. Co. v. Cunningham, supra.
The original opinion does not clearly reflect the view we have of the case, and for this reason we have deemed it desirable to add what is here said.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.