Court Opinion

ID: 9665707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:55:26.408298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:18.122454
License: Public Domain

REAVLEY, Justice
(dissenting).
This Court is entitled to change its hold • ing with respect to the effect of the 1955 deed; there is good reason for doing so. We cannot escape acknowledging, however, that plaintiffs, the trial court, and the Court of Civil Appeals (497 S.W.2d 530) have accepted and faithfully applied the former per curiam opinion of this Court on that matter. 431 S.W.2d 2. My protest is against the present disposition of all claims for an easement appurtenant. Upon receipt of today’s ruling, plaintiffs Forister et al are learning for the first time since the per curiam opinion that consideration of their former contentions of estoppel is being made and that the success of those contentions is necessary for their cause. They are entitled to be heard and to make their record before having this claim denied.
In my opinion Drye v. Eagle Rock Ranch, Inc., 364 S.W.2d 196 (Tex.1963) does not necessarily control the present claim. This was the position of the Court of Civil Appeals in the first appeal of the present case. 418 S.W.2d 550. If we are to reach the *905question, I would follow the rule of McCleary v. Lourie, 80 N.H. 389, 117 A. 730 (1922).
WALKER and JOHNSON, JJ., join in this dissent.