(Download) "Edward H. Mueller and Jessie M. Mueller v." by Kansas City District Missouri Court of Appeals # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Edward H. Mueller and Jessie M. Mueller v.
- Author : Kansas City District Missouri Court of Appeals
- Release Date : January 05, 1961
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 62 KB
Description
Plaintiffs are the owners of residence property in Kansas City, Missouri, adjacent to residence property owned by defendants.
The two residence lots are separated by an undescribed 22-foot strip of land which had been platted as a cushion or buffer
zone between two subdivisions. The controversy stems from the use of a common driveway by the parties and their predecessors,
and was precipitated when defendants erected a fence which plaintiffs claim prevented access to their garage. Plaintiffs seek
an adjudication that they are the fee owners of certain lands, a decree of title to a small corner of defendants' lot as an
easement, an injunction, and damages. The petition is in two counts. In Count One plaintiffs make the claim and pray judgment that they are the fee simple owners
of their described lot and also of the abutting portion of the mentioned 22-foot strip. They further claim that defendants
wrongfully placed a wall and fence on plaintiffs' land, depriving them of access to their garage, and pray injunctive relief.
Count Two identifies itself as an alternative count to be applicable only in the event the wall and fence are adJudged to
be on defendants' land, in which event plaintiffs allege they and their predecessors in interest have owned their property
for over ten years and have continuously used a driveway extending from 38th Street to their garage, and which provided the
only access to plaintiffs' garage, and that such use created an easement over defendants' land by prescription, giving plaintiffs
the right to continue to use the driveway. The prayer of Count Two is that plaintiffs be adJudged owners of such driveway
easement, by prescription, that defendants be ordered to remove the obstructing wall and enjoined from obstructing the driveway,
and that plaintiffs recover damages. In answer defendants deny and controvert plaintiffs' claims.