Coventon v. Seufert
Citations
- 23 Or. 548
- 32 P. 508
- 1893 Ore. LEXIS 60
Syllabus
<p>1. Easement—Prescriptive Right.—An uninterrupted use and enjoyment of au'easement in a particular way for the statutory period affords a conclusive presumption that the person who used it had a right so to do, provided the use he not by authority of law, or by agreement with the owner of the inheritance: Tollman v. Gasey, 15 Or. 83, cited.</p> <p>2. Idem — Permissive Use—Parol Grant. * —An easement cannot he granted by parol, but that it originated in parol permission does not affect the prescriptive title if it has been used for the requisite period under a claim of right.</p> <p>3. Adverse Possession—Offer to Purchase.—An offer to purchase, made after the statute has fully run, will not bar the claim of adverse possession, unless the relation of landlord and tenant, or of vendor and vendee under a contract of purchase, once existed between tlie parties.</p> <p>4. DEEn — Appurtenances.—An easement such as a ditch passes under the genera] term of appurtenances in a deed, and need not be specially mentioned: Simmons v. Winters, 21 Or. ii, approved.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[I]f there has been an uninterrupted use and enjoyment of an easement in a particular way for more than ten years, it affords a * * * presumption of right in the party who shall have enjoyed it.”
- “[I]f there has been an uninterrupted use and enjoyment of an easement in a particular way for more than ten years, it affords a * * * presumption of right in the party who shall have enjoyed it.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Moore
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
22 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State Ex Rel. Thornton v. HayOregon Supreme Court· 1969-12-19· cited 61×
- Feldman Et Ux. v. Knapp Et Ux.Oregon Supreme Court· 1952-11-06· cited 61×
- United States v. FloreaD. Oregon· 1945-12-17· cited 21×
- Holm v. DavisUtah Supreme Court· 1912-06-12· cited 21×
- A. C. Bohrnstedt Co. v. ScharenOregon Supreme Court· 1911-12-19· cited 18×
- Wheeler v. TaylorOregon Supreme Court· 1898-02-14· cited 17×
- Wels v. HippeOregon Supreme Court· 2017-02-02· cited 15×
- Groshean v. Dillmont Realty Co.Montana Supreme Court· 1932-06-07· cited 14×
- Lechman v. MillsWashington Supreme Court· 1907-07-26· cited 14×
- Browning v. LewisOregon Supreme Court· 1901-03-25· cited 14×
- McDougal v. LameOregon Supreme Court· 1901-05-04· cited 11×
- Albany & Eastern Railroad Co. v. Martell??Oregon Supreme Court· 2020-07-23· cited 8×
- McGrath v. BradleyCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 2010-10-27· cited 6×
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Georgia R. & Banking Co.S.D. Georgia· 1915-10-11· cited 6×
- Sander v. McKinleyCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 2011-03-02· cited 3×
- Griffiths v. ArchibaldUtah Supreme Court· 1954-07-22· cited 3×
- Glaze v. FrostOregon Supreme Court· 1903-11-23· cited 3×
- Bowers v. GilbertUtah Supreme Court· 1924-03-08· cited 1×
- Wels v. HippeOregon Supreme Court· 2016-11-17
- Diaz Navarro v. PostD. Puerto Rico· 1909-09-18
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.