## Facts

- A common owner held three adjoining lots in Gilmer, Texas: lot 3 (a corner filling-station lot), and adjacent lots 1 and 2.
- In 1938, the owner conveyed lot 2 by deed describing the whole lot and then included a clause forbidding construction on a described strip to be used as a driveway connecting the filling station to Tyler Street.
- In 1938, the owner conveyed lot 1 to her daughter; a wash rack/shed serving the filling station on lot 3 projected about 2.5 feet onto lot 1.
- The owner retained lot 3 and leased it continuously for filling-station use; after the owner’s death, a devisee (Castellaw) acquired lot 3 and continued the station lease.
- Lot 2 was later conveyed to Mitchell and Powers with the driveway clause carried forward unchanged.
- Castellaw sued to establish (1) an unlimited driveway easement over the strip on lot 2 benefiting lot 3 and (2) a temporary easement over the 2.5-foot strip on lot 1 occupied by the wash-shed projection until removal.
- The trial court and court of civil appeals recognized both the driveway easement and the temporary wash-shed easement.

## Issues

1. Whether the deed language in the 1938 conveyance of lot 2 reserved a valid easement appurtenant benefiting the filling-station lot, or instead created only a personal right (easement in gross) or an ineffective reservation repugnant to the fee conveyance.
2. Whether an implied easement existed for the wash-shed projection onto lot 1, including whether strict necessity was shown for an implied easement benefiting the grantor/retained land.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed recognition of the driveway easement over lot 2 as an easement appurtenant benefiting the filling-station lot.
- The court rejected the argument that the reservation was repugnant to the grant of lot 2, construing the deed as conveying lot 2 subject to the narrow, specifically described servitude.
- The court held the driveway right was not merely personal to the grantor but intended to benefit the adjoining filling-station parcel and therefore passed with that parcel.
- The court reversed and remanded the portion of the judgment recognizing an implied easement for the wash-shed projection onto lot 1, concluding the evidence did not establish strict necessity.
- The court treated the driveway and wash-shed matters as separable, leaving the driveway holding intact while remanding only the wash-shed issue.

## Legal Principles

- An easement reservation in a deed may be construed as appurtenant when the instrument and surrounding physical arrangement show the right is intended to benefit a particular parcel rather than the grantor personally.
- A deed reserving a limited servitude is not void for “repugnancy” when the instrument, read as a whole, reasonably conveys the fee subject to the reservation.
- Technical words of inheritance or other formal words of art are not required to create a valid appurtenant easement, including one of indefinite duration, if intent is otherwise clear from the instrument.
- Implied easements, particularly those claimed in favor of the grantor or retained land, require proof of strict necessity; convenience or prior use alone is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court enforced an express, deed-reserved driveway easement as appurtenant to the filling-station lot and transferable to its successor, but refused to infer an easement for a wash-shed projection absent proof of strict necessity, remanding that separable claim for further proceedings.


Mitchell v. Castellaw, 246 S.W.2d 163 (Tex. 1952)