# Drye v. Eagle Rock Ranch, Inc.

> Texas Supreme Court · January 30, 1963 · 364 S.W.2d 196

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9677030

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert W. DRYE Et Al., Petitioners, v. EAGLE ROCK RANCH, INC., Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 30, 1963
- **Citations:** 364 S.W.2d 196
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Greenhill
- **Judges:** Greenhill, Smith
- **Cited by:** 256 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9677030

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding property owners had implied easements appurtenant over subdivision roads because plat included the following language: “‘[T]he streets and easements shown on said map are for the sole and exclusive use of . . . owners of the lots’”
- explaining that an easement appurtenant benefits the property to which it is attached; it cannot be separated from the owner’s rights in the land, and it passes with the property
- stating an easement is appurtenant when it is necessary and essential to the enjoyment of the dominant estate; to prove an easement by -3- 04-08-00021-CV implication, the use must be necessary to the use of the dominant estate
- noting a license may rise to the dignity of an easement and must be in writing

## Opinion text

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
GREENHILL, Justice.
In their reply to the application for writ •of error, Respondent Eagle Rock Ranch, Inc., stated that “Respondent [Eagle Rock Ranch, Inc.], its officers and agents, have no desire or intention to interfere with petitioners’ free access to, from and within the recorded subdivisions * * * and have never asserted any right to do so.” They included within this “the strip described in paragraph J” which is a way between subdivisions one and three of Eagle Rock Ranchitos subdivisions. They further state that this is so without regard to whether ■or not this is a severable portion of the judgment of the trial court. Since these rights were conceded by Respondent, we did not include them in our original opinion. On rehearing, however, petitioners urge that these matters be included in our opinion and judgment. Again on rehearing respondents repeat their position: they assure the Court that they will not interfere with petitioners’ free access “to and within the recorded subdivisions.”
The deeds to the lot owners described the lots conveyed according to map or plat of the subdivision. The deed recites the book and page in the deed records where such plat is recorded. The plat shows the streets as well as the lots and blocks. The plat recites in part that “the streets and easements shown on said map are for the sole and exclusive use of said Eagle Rock Corporation and the owners of the lots. * * * ” The plat is signed and duly acknowledged' by Edward W. James and L. L. Gordon, president and secretary of Eagle Rock Corporation, the owner of the property.
In our original opinion, we reserved the question as to whether this constituted a dedication to the public because none of the parties so contended. But its expressed intent is to grant to the lot owners the use of the streets.
Our original opinion stated that there were no easements granted in the deeds to the lot owners. By that we meant that there were no easements expressly given in the deeds, and this is so. We then discussed easements which were alleged to have been raised by implication and dealt with such alleged easements to the ranch outside of the subdivisions.
Since the deeds refer to the recorded plats, and since the plats specifically state that lot owners shall have the use of the streets, the right to use the streets was impliedly granted in the deeds themselves. Moreover, the streets in the subdivisions meet the other requisites for an easement by implication as set out in our original opinion: they were apparent, continuous, and necessary for the physical use of petitioners’ land. City of Corsicana v. Zorn, 97 Tex. 317 , 78 S.W.2d 924 (1904).
In view of the above, and in view of the position which Respondent Eagle Rock Ranch, Inc., has consistently taken in this Court, we hold that the lot owners shall have full use of the said streets and access to and from the said subdivisions by roads which .connect such steets with pubic roads. We further hold that the access between *220 Subdivisions 1 and 3 at the northeast corner of Subdivision 3, joining Presidio Road and LaToya Trail to each other and to the county road shall remain open to the said lot owners.
To the extent of the holding set out above, the motion for rehearing is granted; and the take-nothing judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals heretofore affirmed is modified to the extent herein indicated, and as thus modified is affirmed. In other respects, the motion for rehearing is overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9677030. Public record. Not legal advice.