In this direct appeal1 of the partial denial of her Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order, Interlocutory Injunction, and Permanent Injunction, Yvonne Williams contends that the trial court erred in failing to issue an injunction requiring Charles Trammel to remove a gate obstructing an easement she holds for ingress and egress over land owned by Trammell. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand. The grant or refusal of an interlocutory injunction rests in the sound legal discretion of the trial judge, according to the circumstances of each case; and where the evidence is conflicting, his discretion will not be controlled, unless it is apparent that he has abused it. But the rule that an appellate court will not interfere with the discretion of the trial judge in granting or refusing an interlocutory injunction where the evidence is conflicting does not apply when the question to be decided by him is one of law. Citations omitted. Bell Industries v. Jones .2 Here, the record shows that in 2004, Williams acquired a parcel of land adjacent to land owned by Trammell, who acquired his land in 2000. By the terms of Trammell’s deed, he took his property “subject to a 60 foot ingress-egress easement along the . . . property line as shown on” a certain plat, on which the location of the easement was marked. Williams’s deed likewise reflects the easement in her favor running across Trammell’s property and giving her access to a public road.3
In September 2005, Williams filed a Petition for Temporary Restraining Order, Interlocutory Injunction, and Permanent Injunction, alleging that Trammell had installed two gates one at the entrance from the public road and another midway along the easement that obstructed her use of the easement. Trammell answered, admitting that he “did install gates with locks . . . but alleging that he provided keys to the locks to” Williams.