Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Tripp v. Huff
Maine Supreme Judicial Court
606 A.2d 792 (1992)
When selling a portion of a larger property, a seller is free to place a burden on one property for the benefit of the other property.
However, burdening a property for the benefit of a stranger property is historically a different matter. In Tripp versus Huff, we'll explore whether there was a compelling reason to go against precedent to allow an easement to benefit a party who wasn't a party to the land sale.
Captain Ichabod Jordan conveyed a piece of land abutting a roadway to Nicholas Hearn.
Later in eighteen thirty three, captain Jordan conveyed a forty acre parcel of land north of Nicholas's land to Jeremiah and Nicholas Hearn jointly.
In eighteen sixty three, the pair divided the forty acre land in two. Nicholas was named the sole owner of the southernmost half of the property, which connected to Nicholas's parcel abutting the roadway.
The landlocked northern half became Jeremiah's.
Later that year, the portion of Nicholas's property initially conveyed to him by captain Jordan, which separated the formerly jointly owned parcel from the roadway, was sold to William Andrews.
The deed stated that Jeremiah and his assigns were to be provided a right of way over the property being conveyed to Andrews so that Jeremiah could still access his parcel.
Andrews later sold his property to a Kenneth Huff and Alfred and Joanne Barlow.
Jeremiah sold the landlocked Northern property to David Tripp.
Tripp sued Huff and the Barlow's in York County Superior Court. Tripp alleged that the language in the deed to Andrews provided Jeremiah and his assigns, meaning trip, an express right of way to access the roadway.
The parties stipulated that Jeremiah was a stranger to the deed between Nicholas and Andrews.
Tripp also argued that he had an easement of necessity and implication.
The trial court determined that Tripp didn't have a right of way over Huff's and the Barlow's land. Tripp appealed to the main supreme judicial court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/tripp-v-huff
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/tripp-v-huff
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Tripp v. Huff
Maine Supreme Judicial Court
606 A.2d 792 (1992)
When selling a portion of a larger property, a seller is free to place a burden on one property for the benefit of the other property.
However, burdening a property for the benefit of a stranger property is historically a different matter. In Tripp versus Huff, we'll explore whether there was a compelling reason to go against precedent to allow an easement to benefit a party who wasn't a party to the land sale.
Captain Ichabod Jordan conveyed a piece of land abutting a roadway to Nicholas Hearn.
Later in eighteen thirty three, captain Jordan conveyed a forty acre parcel of land north of Nicholas's land to Jeremiah and Nicholas Hearn jointly.
In eighteen sixty three, the pair divided the forty acre land in two. Nicholas was named the sole owner of the southernmost half of the property, which connected to Nicholas's parcel abutting the roadway.
The landlocked northern half became Jeremiah's.
Later that year, the portion of Nicholas's property initially conveyed to him by captain Jordan, which separated the formerly jointly owned parcel from the roadway, was sold to William Andrews.
The deed stated that Jeremiah and his assigns were to be provided a right of way over the property being conveyed to Andrews so that Jeremiah could still access his parcel.
Andrews later sold his property to a Kenneth Huff and Alfred and Joanne Barlow.
Jeremiah sold the landlocked Northern property to David Tripp.
Tripp sued Huff and the Barlow's in York County Superior Court. Tripp alleged that the language in the deed to Andrews provided Jeremiah and his assigns, meaning trip, an express right of way to access the roadway.
The parties stipulated that Jeremiah was a stranger to the deed between Nicholas and Andrews.
Tripp also argued that he had an easement of necessity and implication.
The trial court determined that Tripp didn't have a right of way over Huff's and the Barlow's land. Tripp appealed to the main supreme judicial court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/tripp-v-huff
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/tripp-v-huff
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
