Edmison v. Lowry

Citations

• 3 S.D. 77
• 17 L.R.A. 275
• 52 N.W. 583
• 1892 S.D. LEXIS 48

Syllabus

<p>1. The owner of a lot abutting upon a street in a city is presumed to be the owner of the soil and freehold of the street in front of such lot to the center thereof, incumbered only by the easement in the public for passing and repassing oyer the same, and the rights of the municipality to use the same, or permit its use, for municipal purposes, as authorized by law.</p> <p>2. The rights of such abutting owner in the street in front of his premises for access, ingress, egress, light, and air are peculiar, distinct, and separate from the easement in the public generally in such street, and constitute a part of the property itself.</p> <p>3. This right of an abutting owner entitles him to a free and unobstructed street to the center thereof, subject to the easement of the public and the rights of the municipality, and no one iiot authorized by law can lawfully obstruct the same or deprive him of free access, ingress, egress, light, and air at all times in the same.</p> <p><1. The lease of property abutting upon a public street carries with it all the easements, incidents, and rights of the owner in such street belonging to said property, unless specially reserved by the lessor in the lease, subject to the equal enjoyment of such rights by other tenants of portions of the same property.</p> <p>5. The plaintiffs, owners of a three-story brick building fronting on Ninth street, in the city of Sioux Falls, leased the cellar and first story of the same to the defendant for a period of two years. During the term the plaintiffs erected a largo stone building on a lot adjoining the leased premises, and deposited lumber and other building material in front of the leased premises, and upon a cross walk leading from defendant’s sidewalk to the. opposite sidewalk, thereby depriving the defendant of free access, ingress, and egress to the front of the leased premises, against the protest and objection of the defendant, and so continued such obstruction in front of said premises