Court Opinion

ID: 9765086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:50:20.707776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:04.954432
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In appellant’s fifth point on motion for rehearing it is argued that the evidence established, as a matter of law, that the location of the parking area was so indefinite as to form no basis for establishment of a parking easement. The evidence showed that a portion of the dike leading up to Sikes’ leasehold from the south was shelled and used for parking purposes by Sikes’ customers. The trial court’s judgment specifically described such area as two rectangular tracts on either side of the access roadway which it defined as “a reasonable area for parking available to the customers of the leasehold business.” The trial court, having determined appellant’s right to a parking easement by estoppel, was empowered in its equity jurisdiction, to fix and establish an exact location of the parking area which would be reasonably sufficient for the accomplishment of the purposes intended. Westbrook v. Wright, 477 S.W.2d 663 (Tex.Civ.App.— Houston, 14th, 1972, no writ hist.) ; Lange, Texas Practice, Vol. 384, p. 173; 28 C.J.S. Easements § 83, p. 762.
We have carefully considered appellant’s other points raised in its motion for rehearing and they are overruled.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.