Finn v. Williams

Supreme Court of Illinois · 2005 · Property

33 N.E.2d 226 (Ill. 1941)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyEasementsWay of Necessityeasement by necessityimplied easementunity of titleseverancelandlocked parcel

Facts

In 1895, Charles H. Williams owned a single tract of about 140 acres and conveyed 39.47 acres to Thomas J. Bacon while retaining the remaining 100 acres, later inherited by defendant. Plaintiffs acquired the 39.47-acre tract in 1937 and alleged that the only available access to a highway was across defendant's tract and then through a third tract to the north. Although successive owners of plaintiffs' tract had long used private permissive ways over neighboring strangers' land to the south and east, those ways had been closed, and defendant conceded those permissive routes no longer existed. After defendant refused in 1939 to allow further travel across her tract, plaintiffs had no vehicular access to market and had to walk about three-quarters of a mile carrying produce.

Issue

Whether plaintiffs were entitled to an easement by necessity over defendant's remaining land where the two tracts were once under common ownership, the conveyed tract had no highway outlet except over the grantor's land or over strangers' land, and permissive access over strangers' land later ceased. A secondary issue was whether the appeal should be dismissed as untimely.

Rule

Where an owner conveys a parcel of land that has no outlet to a highway except over the grantor's remaining land or over the land of strangers, a way of necessity is implied over the grantor's remaining land. If there was once unity of title, that right may remain dormant through several transfers, passes as appurtenant to the dominant estate, and may be exercised when permissive access over strangers' land is denied.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In 1998, Owen Mercer owned 120 acres outside Peoria, Illinois. He conveyed a 30-acre interior parcel to Dana Cole and kept the surrounding acreage; at the time, the parcel could reach the county road only by crossing Owen's retained land or by using a neighboring farmer's informal lane, which the neighbor allowed as a favor. In 2024, the neighbor locked the lane, and the current owner of the 30-acre parcel seeks access across Owen's former retained tract now owned by Mira Sloan.

Which is the strongest argument that the current owner has a right-of-way over Mira's land?

Explanation. The majority rule is that when an owner conveys a parcel with no outlet to a highway except over the grantor's remaining land or over land of strangers, a way of necessity is implied over the grantor's retained land. A permissive route over a stranger's land does not defeat the implied easement because it is not a legal right. The easement arises at severance even if not expressly written into the deed. (Derived from Finn v. Williams (1941).)