Citation Numbers: 66 A.2d 539, 4 N.J. Super. 37
Judges: The opinion of the court was delivered by BIGELOW, J.A.D.
Filed Date: 6/2/1949
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 4/9/2017
This is a conflict between adjacent land owners over access to a state highway. The paved part of the highway is separated from the properties in question by a strip of land 16 feet wide which, although not presently used either as a roadway or as a sidewalk, is a part of the highway and owned by the State in fee. The defendants, who operate a gasoline filling station on their property, constructed a concrete exit drive across the unpaved portion of the highway to the roadway. But instead of building their exit at right angles to the line of the highway, they laid it out at an oblique angle so that it runs in front of the plaintiff's property and hampers access to its land. *Page 39
The plaintiff has the same right of access to the highway in front of its property as have the defendants. Barnett v.Johnson,
The defendants also rely on the circumstance that the side lines of their property do not run at right angles with the state highway but obliquely, and that the driveway in question lies within the side line of their property, extended into the highway. We cannot see the relevancy of this circumstance. The peculiar interest which every abutting owner has in that segment of a highway or street in front of his land, is in no way dependent on the shape of his lot. Cases relating to riparian lands furnish an apt analogy. Delaware, Lackawanna WesternR.R. Co. v. Hannon,
The injunction granted by the Chancery Division for the protection of plaintiff's right against infringement by defendants, will be affirmed. *Page 40