Can you think of any case law which illustrates the fact that easements can be binding upon a grantee's successors in title? Many thanks
2006-11-29 01:18:57 · 4 answers · asked by squirrels 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Easements are normally binding upon the grantor's successors in title. The grantee simply enjoys the benefit of them!
My advice to you is to check the title of your essay to see whether in fact you got the terminology right. Then go to your law library and systematically work your way through the indices of the All England Law Reports and/or the Weekly Law Reports looking for mention of the word "easement". If you do strike gold, you will find that the case report itself will give you clues as to other reported cases on the topic. From then on, you are winning!
You might as well start now, as that discipline is what the life of a practising lawyer entails!
2006-11-29 04:26:44 · answer #1 · answered by Doethineb 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A grantee wouldn't be "bound" as such, would he? The grantee gets the benefit, not the burden. Do you mean case law illustrating how the grantor's successors in title are bound, or illustrating how the benefit runs with the land to the successors in title?
2006-11-29 01:30:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's usually stated in the easement. Common practice, based in Common Law.
2006-11-29 01:30:08 · answer #3 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hi Squirrells,
Well, Easments must benefit the dominant land and would be registered.
Some cases for you regarding easements.
Miller v Emcer Products (1956)
Dowty Boulton Paul Ltd v Wolverhampton Corporation (No 2) (1976).
That should get you started.
2006-11-29 07:02:30 · answer #4 · answered by LYN W 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋