Houston Bellaire contends that a strict necessity standard should apply to reciprocal easements, that is, when both properties benefit from an easement across both tracts at the time of severance, citing Ward v. Slavecek, 466 S.W.2d 91, 92 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1971, no writ). TCP Argues that the standard should be that of reasonable necessity. See James v. Gray, 281 S.W.2d 114, 116-17 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1955, writ ref'd n.r.e.) In Ward, the original owner of two adjacent lots built a common driveway approximately on the division line between the two properties.

* * *" Numerous authorities sustain this proposition, among which see Howell v. Estes, 1888, 71 Tex. 690, 12 S.W. 62; Miles v. Bodenheim, Tex.Civ.App. 1917, 193 S.W. 693, ref.; El Paso Land Improvement Co. v. Crawford, Tex.Com.App. 1927, 292 S.W. 518, 520 (holding approved); Neilon v. Texas Trust Security Co., Tex.Civ.App. 1941, 147 S.W.2d 321, dism., cor. judg.; James v. Gray, Tex.Civ.App. 1955, 281 S.W.2d 114, ref., n. r. e.; 17A Am.Jur. 652-654, Easements, Secs. 41 and 42; Restatement of the Law Property, p. 2977 et seq., Sec. 476; 28 C.J.S. Easements, § 33; pp. 691, 693; 14-B Tex.Jur. 600, Deeds, Sec. 147. On July 27, 1947, the defendant here, as plaintiff, filed a suit in Burnet County, Texas, against the plaintiffs herein, Ulbricht and Heckman, as defendants, in which she sought to set aside, because of fraud, the provisions in her original deed to Ulbricht and Heckman conveying the 386 acres whereby a perpetual easement was granted across the remaining portion of her ranch for ingress and egress to the 386 acres conveyed. R. M. Jones, a tenant of Linda Lou's, intervened and in general alleged a similar cause of action to that alleged by Linda Lou against Ulbricht and Heckman. This suit was numbered 3783, and was ended by the entry of an agreed judgment whereby, among other provisions, the plaintiff and intervenor therein gave full recognition to the right of Ulbricht and Heckman to

Many other jurisdictions take a similar approach. See,e.g. , Rees v.Drinning , 64 Cal.App.2d 273, 148 P.2d 378 (1944); Rosendahl v.Nelson , 408 N.W.2d 609 (Minn.App. 1987); Corbett v. Whitney , 603 P.2d 1291 (Wyo. 1979); Winter v. Satchell , 261 Or. 517, 495 P.2d 738 (1972); James v.Gray , 281 S.W.2d 114 (Tex.App. 1955). The present case shares the essential elements of an implied easement with Di Pasco and Foxx.