delivered the opinion of the Court.

The order appealed from overruled a demurrer to a hill •of complaint which alleged, in effect, that the defendants conveyed to the plaintiff by deed 'dated May 24th, 1915, exhibited with the bill, a lot of ground located on the east *626 side of Garrison Avenue in Baltimore >and described as. binding on the south, side of an. alley three feet wide; which extended eastwardlv from the avenue to the rear of the lot, and the use of which in' common was granted, by the deed, together with, “all the rights, alleys, ways; waters, advantage®, privilegies and -appurtenances; belonging or in anywise appertaining” to the property conveyed; that at the time of the conveyance the defendants delivered to the plaintiff a drawing of the lot showing the aleys then in' existence which the defendants agreed, in accordance with the previous oral understanding between 'the parties, were appurtenant to the land conveyed by the deed, which drawing was filed with the bill as an exhibit and shows an alley three feet wide connecting at 'tire rear of the granted loit with -the first mentioned alley and extending northwardly to 'an alley ten feet wide which connects with Waldheim Street to ithe west and thus •affords access to plaintiff’s lot from that direction; that those .alleys were “actually laid out and existing” at the time of the purchase by 'and conveyance to the plaintiff, of the lot ■to which they were represented a® being appurtenant; that he would not have purchased the lot without the benefit of the appurtenant alleys then in existence shown on the drawing which the defendants presented; that the defendants-have recently; against the plaintiff’s protest, erected a hedge and wire fence across the end of the alley with which the one along the north side of the plaintiff’s lot immediately connects, and1 previously constructed, 'and .still maintain, a garage which projects into •the bed of the ten-foot alley to the extent of half its width, and the removal of which the: plaintiff has repeatedly demanded; and that the maintenance of the fence .and garage ha® gyeatly impaired the 'availability of the plaintiff’s lot by reducing the width of the-•ten-foot alley, and by wholly obstructing access from hi® property to the three-foot alley forming part of the alley system by which a rear passageway to and from his lot is-provided. An injunction against the continuance of the-obstructions was. proposed by the bill of complaint.

*627 The essentia! question to be decided is Whether thie defendants are entitled to -interfer'e with the plaintiff’® use of -alleys which -are alleged by the bill and admitted by the demurrer to have been in -existence -at the time of-the purchase of hi® lot and to have been represented by .the defendants to be appurtenianit ways passing under the conveyance. It is not necessary to- -discuss the -contention that such an eaisement cannot be created or transferred by -oral .agreement, or to determine that -the general grant of 'all appurtenant ways included the alleys iu litigation. It i® sufficient to inquire whether’ a court of equity can ipiermit the defendants to obstruct an existing way upon -the use of which, as the bill avers, .they induced their grantee to- rely as a material consideration for his purchase.

Iu Tiffany on Real Property, sec. 366 (o) it is said: “If, in order to effect a sale of land, the intending vendor -states that there is a street or way adjacent to or near the land, or an easement 'appurtenant thereto, .and on the faith of such statement the purchase is made, the vendor is ordinarily estopped to deny the existence of the way, street or other easement, >amd the sarnie 'effect ha® occasionally been given to the exhibition by the vendor to the vendee, before the sale, of a plat showing a particular street or way as existing in connection with the property.” One of 'the cases cited in sup>port of that statement was Mattes v. Frankel, 157 N. Y. 603, where a purchaser of land relied upon a representation of the vendor that an existing way was appurtenant to the property sold, -and the vendor wais held to be estopped to deny the vendee’s right to the use of the way. The fact that the question related to an interest in real estate was held not to prevent the operation of the estoppel.

The representation alleged in the bill of complaint in this case did not refer to the creation of any new way, but designated way® already iu existence. It would be inequitable, iu our opinion, to allow the grantors to destroy or obstruct .an apparent easement which they represented to be appurtenant to land purchased from them upon the faith of that assurance.

*628 The bill does not state that the defendants, when they m-ada their conveyance to the plaintiff, were -the owner® of the ground over which the alley® in question extended, or were themselves entitled te use the 'alley® for the benefit of the lot to which 'they are said' to be appurtenant. Because-of this omission it is argued that the disputed right, alleged to have been derived from the defendants, doie® not appear to- be maintainable. We are unaible to accept -that theory. If it be aEBumied that the defendant® had no interest in the-alleys which, as the bill state®, they .asserted to. be appurtenant -to the lot -they were conveying, it is nevertheless clear-that they would have no.- right to oppose the. use of the alleys-by a vendee of the lot who was induced by that representation to consummate hi® purchase. The principle of estoppel would he readily available and effective to defeat the attempted interference under -such conditions.

The -allegiaitions of the bill present a ease in which relief by injunction will be -appropriate if the stated facts are-proved. Duvall v. Ridout, 124 Md. 193; Douglass v. Riggin, 123 Md. 18; Oberheim v. Reeside, 116 Md. 265; Chesapeake Co. v. Mt. Vernon Co., 107 Md. 532.

Order affirmed, with costs, and case remanded' for further proceedings.