The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Romans' (P) father became the owner of lot 2 in 1898, and since that time they have occupied that property. Nadler (D) became owner of lot 3 in 1921. P's house is close to the west line of lot 2. Their garage encroaches on lot 3. D's house is a considerable distance from the line between the lots. The evidence with respect to the easements claimed by P is rather sketchy. The evidence showed that P used the easement twice per year to put on and take off storm windows and to paint the house (six times in 46 years). No express permission was given by the grantors for this privilege. P testified he did not think any permission was necessary. The trial court held that the projection of P's eaves and gutters and the dripping therefrom constituted adverse possession of the parts of lot 3 underneath them and that the uses of lot 3 for which it adjudged an easement in favor of P had all the essentials necessary to give rise to prescriptive rights.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.