REAL PROPERTY-EASEMENTS-IMPLIED GRANT OF RIGHT OF WAY

Plaintiffs claimed an easement by implied grant in a driveway situated wholly on defendants\u27 land, but directly adjoining the land of plaintiffs. The driveway had been constructed at a time when both pieces of property were owned by X. X had conveyed part of the land to plaintiffs\u27 remote grantor, and three months later had conveyed the adjoining portion, including the driveway, to defendants\u27 remote grantor. The driveway had fallen into disrepair and at the time of the action was in such a depreciated state as to be practically useless. On the opposite side of plaintiffs\u27 house there was space on which a driveway of the same dimensions as the disputed way could be constructed. In an action to enjoin defendants from interfering with plaintiffs\u27 use of the drive, the trial court denied the injunction. On appeal, held, affirmed. Necessity is an essential element for establishing an easement by implication, and the facts here do not sustain a finding of necessity. Wilp v. Magnus, (Okla. 1951) 230 P. (2d) 733