REAL PROPERTY-PRESCRIPTION-RECIPROCAL EASEMENTS IN MUTUAL DRIVEWAY

Plaintiffs brought this suit in equity to establish their right to an alleged easement acquired by prescription in a joint driveway on the lot line separating their lot from defendants\u27 lot and for injunctive relief restraining defendants from interfering with their use of the driveway. The husband of the common grantor of these lots had erected a house on each lot in 1924 and had constructed a driveway over the eight feet of land between the houses, half of the driveway being on each lot. Each lot was thirty-one feet wide and each had a garage in the rear, defendants\u27 garage being accessible from an alley while plaintiffs\u27 garage was accessible only by means of the driveway. The husband of the common grantor testified that he had built the joint driveway to enhance the value of the lots, and when the lots were sold to defendants\u27 predecessor in 1924 and to plaintiffs\u27 predecessor in 1925, he told each purchaser that they would have the right to use the driveway and that the occupants of the other lot would also use it. The original grantees and their successors continued the mutual use of the driveway until 1948, when defendants erected a fence down the middle of the driveway. On appeal from a decree of the circuit court that an easement by prescription had been acquired, held, reversed. The user began as a mutual convenience to both lots, hence, it was permissive, not adverse. Banach v. Lawera, 330 Mich. 436, 47 N.W. (2d) 679 (1951)