000			01493cab a2200205 4500
001			Z3486
008			090401t1993 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u53430
041			_aeng
245			_aStafford v Lee
260			_c1993
350			_a0
490			_aProperty and Compensation Reports _v(1993) 65 P&CR, 172-178(7)
520			_aCA 10 November 1992. An appeal by the defendants from a judgement in the county court declaring that the plaintiffs were entitled to a right of way for residential purposes over land belonging to the defendants. By deed of gift, the defendant`s predecessor in title conveyed an area of woodland to the plaintiff`s predecessor in title. Although the deed did not contain an express grant of a right of way over the drive to the public highway, the plaintiffs asserted that they had an implied right of way over the drive as that was necessary to give effect to the common intention of the parties of the 1955 deed. The defendants contended that the right of way was limited to use for purposes necessary for the enjoyment of the land as woodland, not residential purposes. The county court judge declared that the plaintiffs were entitled to a right of way over the drive for the purposes of building and using a house, and the defendants appealed. Held, dismissing the appeal. The question was whet
650			_aDEED OF GIFT
650			_aEASEMENTS
690			_aHIGHWAYS RIGHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENTS
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c32936 _d32936