money for the support of the complainant or the services of other people which she could herself render. In determining whether proper support was furnished, the condition in life of the parties at the time the contract was made must be taken into consideration. They were all poor people, and the complainant was not only unable to care for herself, but had no property that would have furnished her any support. Defendant was of the working class, and it was not anticipated by either that the support furnished would be different from or better than that pertaining to their station in life. The chancellor found that proper support was not furnished, and as he saw the witnesses and heard them testify he had better opportunities to judge of their credibility than we have, but after giving due consideration to that fact we are unable to agree with the conclusion reached. There was no evidence tending in any degree to show a failure on the part of the defendant to keep her contract from January 18, 1901, when the first deed was made, up to the summer of 1907, and the only testimony as to any facts occurring at that time came from two women who acknowledged their hostility and ill-feeling toward the defendant and manifested a desire to injure her, if possible. One of them, who did washing and house-cleaning, and at the time of the hearing was sweeping, cleaning and dusting for the bureau of charities, and who for seven months, beginning in the fall of 1907, occupied a building on the rear of defendant's lot, testified to want of support and bad treatment, and she was corroborated by her sister to some extent, but there was a very clear preponderance of evidence coming from disinterested parties that the complainant was well cared for according to the station in life of the parties and was well and comfortably clothed. The complainant was fickle and changeable, and would disappear from any place where she might be, without notice and apparently without cause. Both she and her husband had been addicted to the use of intoxicat ing liquors, and she habitually smoked a pipe. The evidence shows that she had a comfortable room whenever she chose to stay with the defendant and was supplied with pipes and tobacco but not with liquor, and that she spent her time largely in smoking her pipe and did no work except such as she voluntarily did. Under the evidence in the record the decree cannot be supported upon any correct view of the law. The decree is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to dismiss the bill for want of equity. Reversed and remanded, with directions. CHARLES S. HANKINS, Appellant, vs. ARTHur W. HenDRICKS, Appellee. Opinion filed December 21, 1910. 1. EASEMENTS-making and recording of a plat not essential to create an easement. The making and recording of a plat are not essential to the creation of an easement and create no easement as long as title to the platted tract remains in the original owner, but, whether recorded or not, plat, in connection with other evidence, may tend to show a disposition and arrangement by the owner of different parts of the tract. 2. SAME easement may arise by owner's division of land and sales with reference thereto. Where the owner of a tract of land has divided it into different parts, as lots and alleys or ways, in such a manner that one part derives from another an advantage of a permanent, open and visible character, and has afterwards sold a part of the property, the purchaser takes the part sold with all the benefits and burdens which appear at the time of the sale to belong to it. 3. SAME easement claimed need not be absolutely necessary for enjoyment of estate granted. It is not essential that the easement claimed by the purchaser of a lot be absolutely necessary for the enjoyment of the estate granted to him, and it is sufficient if it is highly convenient and beneficial thereto. 4. SAME―a grantee with notice takes no better right than his grantor. An owner of a tract of land who has divided it in such a way that an alley and court are reserved for the use of the premises sold and are openly used by the purchasers of such premises as a means of access to their lots from the street, cannot thereafter destroy the easement by closing up the alley and court, nor can he confer that right by quit-claim deed on a person having notice of the open and visible use to which the alley and court are subjected. APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Macon county; the Hon. WILLIAM C. JOHNS, Judge, presiding. C. E. SCHROLL, for appellant. WHITLEY & FITZGERALD, for appellee. Mr. JUSTICE DUNN delivered the opinion of the court: The circuit court of Macon county dismissed the appellant's bill for an injunction restraining the appellee from removing the appellant's fence and passing over his land. The record has been brought before us for review, and presents the question of the existence of an easement of passage to and from appellee's lot over appellant's premises. For more than twenty years prior to 1903 Harvey Mahannah owned lots 3 and 4 of block 2 in Lake & Co.'s addition to Decatur. Lot 3 was immediately north of lot 4, and each fronted east on Warren street 150 feet, with a depth of 290 feet. Center street, running east and west, was the south boundary of lot 4. Mahannah sold the west 50 feet of lot 4 to Alice E. Smith on August 14, 1903, the next 40 feet east to Elbert C. Tade on October 29, 1904, the next 40 feet east to William I. Lundy on April 7, 1905, and the next 40 feet east to Emery O. Shively on April 2, 1906. He sold 45 feet off the north side of lot 3 to Patrick Cullen, and on January 31, 1906, sold the west 90 feet of the south 105 feet of lot 3 to Elbert C. Tade. This tract Tade sold to the appellee in January, 1909. Immediately south of the Cullen tract another tract fronting 45 feet on Warren street and running back 200 feet was sold, and the W 108 tract immediately south of that, fronting on Warren street 47.8/12 feet and 170 feet deep, was sold to Lily Thomas. This left a strip about 12 feet wide fronting on Warren street, running back 200 feet, and a tract lying north of the west 30 feet thereof immediately west of Mrs. Thomas' lot, and it is concerning these tracts that the controversy arises. The following plat indicates the relative situation. of the various parts of the lots. lot 3 not otherwise marked: N 290 Appellant owns all of It appears from the evidence that when Tade bought the first tract of Mahannah, which fronted on Center street, Mahannah told him that there was to be an alley for the use of the property owners and showed him where it would be. There was also to be a court for turning, immediately north and at the rear of Tade's lot. The court was laid ST. out by Mahannah, and was used, together with the alley, for all kinds of driving and hauling. From that time there has been no obstruction to travel and the property owners have buildings at the south line of the alley. When Lundy bought, the same representations were made to him in regard to the alley, and he was told that it should extend from Warren street to the west line of his lot. He insisted on having the provision for the alley in his deed, and it was accordingly inserted in these words: "The grantors hereby grant to said grantee the free use of an alley, which said grantors agree to open in 1905 from Warren street west along the north line of said lot 4 to the west line of said tract above conveyed, with a court at the west end large enough for turning teams." The alley and court have ever since been used by the owners of the adjoining property as a means of access from Warren street to the rear of their lots. The alley was fenced on the south but 'not on the north until after Mrs. Thomas' purchase, when she built the fence on the north in 1906 or 1907. When Tade made his second purchase, the tract 90 by 105 feet in the south-west corner of lot 3 was entirely shut off from access to any public street except over that portion of lot 3 lying between it and Warren street, which was still owned by Mahannah. The alley was there, and though not fenced was a visible indication of its appropriation to the use of this portion of the premises as well as to the use of the premises of the adjoining proprietors. The court was then north of Tade's first purchase but by agreement was moved east, no one having any interest in keeping it where it was. No change was made in the alley, and later a fence was built around Mrs. Thomas' lot and thus the court and alley were fenced out. This was the condition when the appellee purchased several years later and when appellant later obtained a conveyance of the court and alley, on July 1, 1909. Thereupon the appellant built a fence on the west side of the court and the appellee tore it down. This was repeated |