From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hudson v. American Oil Company

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Mar 3, 1958
253 F.2d 27 (4th Cir. 1958)

Summary

stating that an easement can be extinguished by an Act of God

Summary of this case from Marble Techs., Inc. v. Mallon

Opinion

No. 7529.

Argued November 25, 1957.

Decided March 3, 1958.

J.B. Cowles, Jr., Williamsburg, Va., and E. Ralph James, Hampton, Va. (James, Richardson James, Hampton, Va., on brief), for appellants.

Ralph H. Ferrell, Jr., Richmond, Va., and Charles E. Ford, Newport News, Va. (R. Allan Wimbish, Richmond, Va., Murray, Ford, West Wikinson, Newport News, Va., and Hunton, Williams, Gay, Moore Powell, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellee.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judges.


The questions in this case involve local real estate law and the construction of state statutes. They have been decided against the contentions of appellant by a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, which we must accept as binding authority. See American Oil Co. v. Leaman, Va., 101 S.E.2d 540. The decision appealed from will be affirmed on the authority of the case cited, which accords with the opinion of the District Judge in this case.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Hudson v. American Oil Company

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Mar 3, 1958
253 F.2d 27 (4th Cir. 1958)

stating that an easement can be extinguished by an Act of God

Summary of this case from Marble Techs., Inc. v. Mallon
Case details for

Hudson v. American Oil Company

Case Details

Full title:Elmer Raymond HUDSON et al., Appellants, v. The AMERICAN OIL COMPANY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Mar 3, 1958

Citations

253 F.2d 27 (4th Cir. 1958)

Citing Cases

United States v. Parkway Towers, Inc.

In Jennings v. Lineberry, 180 Va. 44, 21 S.E.2d 769, 770, it is said that while one cannot have an easement…

Smith v. Board of Supervisors

" See also Hudson v. American Oil Co., 152 F. Supp. 757, (affirmed, 253 F.2d 27); City of Lynchburg v.…