“The fact that an owner is aware of the use of his private path is not enough to establish a prescription.”  “An owner`s tolerance for the simple use of his or her road only gives rise to a revocable licence.”  The Yawns` mere use of private crossbreeding was not sufficient for them to acquire prescription rights. On the basis of the Kreisgericht judgments in the right of compensation dispute, Breeden succeeded the Crossing Agreement, a valid contract with the land under which Norfolk Southern was required to build and maintain the private crossing of the border. It is indisputable that Norfolk Southern was aware of the covenant and removed the cross for which Breeden obtained “right and privilege”. Breeden was therefore entitled to an injunction requesting the replacement of the crossroads, unless Norfolk Southern proved that “this remedy would create a severity or injustice disproportionate to the discharge sought if the defendant`s performance was impossible or if the execution of the decree was unusually difficult for the court.” Perel, 267 Va. 700, 594 S.E.2d to 904-05 (footnotes). So far, we have not applied the teaching of the first material violation to property rights granted under a true Confederation. This doctrine is not appropriate to address situations where the federal association is attempting to excuse its unilateral termination of the real estate interests of other landowners. Nevertheless, the District Court did not coincide in concluding that there was no substantial offence of Breeden. With respect to the correct determination of the binding clause of the crossover contract in the compensation right dispute, the District Court has decided that the Crossing Agreement is a valid contract, which is held with the country so that Breeden, in place of Yanceys, is entitled to the use and benefits of the crossover.3 In addition, , the District Court held that Ditton, as Breeden`s reading as Breeden`s reading, was a successor under the Crossing Agreement and therefore had a legal right to use the crossover regardless of whether Breeden permitted such use by Ditton. The District Court also ruled that “Ditton`s use of the intersection not only benefited [Breeden], but that Ditton benefited independently.” Since the Crossing Agreement expressly gives [Yanceys and their successors] the right and privilege to use the crossroads “exclusively for their own benefit and for their own benefit,” the use of The Crossing by Ditton to its own advantage did not constitute a violation of the Crossing Agreement. Do you really think that every farmer, homeowner and anyone else who has their own intersections need cross-protection? That`s not true! It is just crazy to have a nationally regulated crossroads, which is only used for a farmer to cross his tractor from one field to another. During this proceeding, the Tribunal refused to give the parties the opportunity to provide evidence regarding the facts and circumstances of the case and found, before the evidence provided by the owner was completed, that all other evidence offered by both parties was not significant. In essence, the court found that the undisputed fact that the railway had closed the intersection automatically required the entry of a permanent injunction.
Here, on the Snoqualmie Valley Railroad, we have five private intersections and twelve public intersections, and we blow the horn at all 17 intersections. The regional court dismissed Breeden`s motion for summary judgment and held a hearing of evidence on Breeden`s application for permanent omission. After reviewing the evidence presented at the hearing and some of Norfolk Southern`s concessions, the District Court granted the motion for termination, which stated that Norfolk Southern must replace the intersection. In the simple language of the rule, it applies only when there are jury questions that must be tried. Although Breeden`s right of offence required proof of damages resulting from the breach, Breeden was not required to prove the