Title: Rouse v. Munroe

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Rouse v. Munroe1983 WY 14658 P.2d 74Case Number: 5760Case Number: 5760Decided: 02/10/1983Supreme Court of Wyoming
JOHN E. ROUSE, APPELLANT 
(DEFENDANT),

v.

ERNEST W. MUNROE, 
APPELLEE (PLAINTIFF). No. 5760

Appeal from the District 
Court, CarbonCounty, Robert A. Hill, 
J.

Richard F. 
Pickett of Loomis, Lazear, Wilson & Pickett, Cheyenne, for appellant.

Harold M. 
Johnson of Johnson, Noecker & Noecker, Rawlins, for appellee.

Before ROONEY, C.J.*, and RAPER, THOMAS, ROSE[fn**] and BROWN, 
JJ.

* Became Chief Justice on 
January 1, 1983.

[fn**] Chief 
Justice at time of oral argument.

ROSE, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     In this appeal we are 
asked to review the district court's construction of an easement owned by 
appellant John Rouse. The easement has as its purpose the maintaining of a 
stock-watering reservoir on a portion of appellee Ernest W. Munroe's property. 
In the district court proceeding Munroe sued Rouse, alleging that water in the 
reservoir was inundating more land than authorized by the easement. Following 
the trial, the district judge decided that the terms of the easement only 
permitted the reservoir to encompass ten acres of appellee's property. A 
judgment was therefore entered enjoining the appellant from storing a quantity 
of water in the reservoir which was in excess of that which was required to 
inundate ten acres of appellee's land. No damages were 
awarded.

[¶2.]     Appellant Rouse now 
asks this court to review the above ruling and to hold that the trial judge 
erred in construing the terms of the easement. In doing so, he raises one issue 
for review:

1. Was the district court 
correct in holding that the easement in question only permitted the appellant to 
inundate ten acres of appellee's property when the parties to the easement had 
also provided that the high-water line was to be 17 feet above the creek 
bottom?

[¶3.]     We are of the opinion 
that the intention of the parties was that the high-water line was to control 
the contour of the easement, and we will reverse.

FACTS

[¶4.]     Appellant Rouse 
approached several ranch-owners in CarbonCounty in 1955 for the purpose of 
acquiring easements for the construction and maintenance of a stock-watering 
reservoir. Before contacting these landowners, Mr. Rouse had filed an 
application with the Wyoming State Engineer for the purpose of acquiring a 
permit to construct a reservoir on Beaver Creek. Attached to the application was 
a map locating the proposed structure and representing that the high-water line 
would be 17 feet above the creek bottom at the dam site with a reservoir of a 
capacity for 162.9 acre feet of water. The application was granted by the State 
Engineer on October 13, 1955.

[¶5.]     According to Rouse's 
testimony, the application was a material consideration in negotiating the 
easement. One of the landowners granting an easement was Mr. Hoyt S. Parkinson. 
The easement, entered into between Parkinson and appellant on October 8, 1955, 
provided in part:

"WHEREAS, the Grantee is 
desirous of constructing a dam to be known as Rouse No. 1 Dam across Beaver 
Creek in the NE 1/4 NE 1/4 of Section 6, in Township 14 North, Range 82 West of 
the 6th P.M., in the County of Carbon, State of Wyoming, for the purpose of a 
stock water reservoir and in accordance with application dated September 26, 
1955 which is on file in the State Engineer's Office of the State of Wyoming, 
which said dam will cause water in the reservoir to be upon a portion of the 
land of said Grantee herein above described, estimated at approximately 10 
acres, more or less.

"NOW, THEREFORE, for and 
in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable 
consideration, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby 
grant to said Grantee, his heirs, administrators, executors, successors and 
assigns, an easement for 10 acres, more or less, in the SW 1/4 NW 1/4 of Section 
5, in Township 14 North, Range 82 West of the 6th P.M., in the County of Carbon, 
State of Wyoming within the high water line contours of the stock water 
reservoir to be formed by the Rouse No. 1 Dam to be constructed across Beaver 
Creek in the NE 1/4 NE 1/4 of Section 6, in Township 14 North, Range 82 West of 
the 6th P.M., in the County of Carbon, State of Wyoming, in accordance with the 
application dated September 26, 1955 on file in the State Engineer's Office of 
the State of Wyoming.

"IT IS FURTHER AGREED by 
and between the said parties that the high water level of said dam will be 
seventeen (17) feet above the creek bottom at the dam site in Beaver 
Creek.

"IT IS FURTHER AGREED by 
and between the parties that this easement will not be in effect until the dam 
is completed, and said easement will cease in the event that the said dam in 
[sic] permanently abandoned."

[¶6.]     Appellee Munroe 
purchased Parkinson's ranch in 1972, and at that time the reservoir was not 
filled because the dam had washed out in 1962. In 1977 the appellant 
reconstructed the dam, and as a result of a survey in 1978 appellee discovered 
that when filled to capacity the reservoir water inundated 19.08 acres of his 
property. Another survey was conducted in April of 1981, after appellant had cut 
off a section of the emergency spillway pipe, and the results showed that 15.2 
acres of appellee's land were still inundated.

[¶7.]     Upon discovery of these 
facts, appellee Munroe brought an action seeking to enjoin the appellant from 
flooding any more than ten acres of his land. The gravamen of the suit, derived 
from Munroe's position, is that the above-quoted portion of the Parkinson-Rouse 
easement provided that only ten acres of land could be inundated. Appellant 
counterclaimed with the contention that the easement permitted the reservoir to 
be filled to the level expressed in the application and that the acreage amount 
found in the document was only an estimate noted by the parties which was not 
controlling. Simply stated, appellant contended that the reservoir water could 
cover as much of appellee's property as necessary to maintain a level of 17 feet 
above the creek bottom at the dam site. As previously mentioned, the trial judge 
found in favor of appellee's position and appellant now asks us to construe the 
easement as he has suggested.

DISCUSSION

[¶8.]     There is no dispute in 
this case between the parties with respect to the fact that the easement burdens 
appellee Munroe's land. Rather, the sole question concerns the intention of the 
parties to the easement as to how much of the servient estate is to be burdened. 
In other words, all we must do in this case is determine the intent of the 
parties as embodied in the instrument, just as we are asked to do in any other 
case involving the construction of a contract.

[¶9.]     Given the fact that 
this case is similar to other contract-construction cases, there are certain 
well-established rules for us to follow in reaching the ultimate issue. The 
basic rules are those we set out in Amoco 
Production Company v. Stauffer Chemical Company of Wyoming, Wyo., 612 P.2d 463, 465 (1980):

"Our basic purpose in 
construing or interpreting a contract is to determine the intention and 
understanding of the parties. Fuchs v. 
Goe, 62 Wyo. 134, 163 P.2d 783 (1945); Shellhart v. Axford, Wyo., 485 P.2d 1031 (1971); Oregon Short Line Railroad Company v. Idaho 
Stockyards Company, 12 Utah 2d 205, 364 P.2d 826 (1961). If the 
contract is in writing and the language is clear and unambiguous, the intention 
is to be secured from the words of the contract. Pilcher v. Hamm, Wyo., 351 P.2d 1041 (1960); Fuchs v. Goe, supra; Hollabaugh v. Kolbet, Wyo., 604 P.2d 1359 (1980); Wyoming Bank and Trust 
Company v. Waugh, Wyo., 606 P.2d 725 (1980). And the contract as 
a whole should be considered, with each part being read in light of all other 
parts. Shepard v. Top Hat Land & 
Cattle Co., Wyo., 560 P.2d 730 (1977); Rossi v. Percifield, Wyo., 527 P.2d 819 
(1974); Shellhart v. Axford, supra; 
Quin Blair Enterprises, Inc. v. Julien Construction Company, 
Wyo., 597 P.2d 945 (1979). The interpretation and construction is done by the 
court as a matter of law. Hollabaugh v. 
Kolbet, supra; Bulis v. Wells, 
Wyo., 565 P.2d 487 (1977); Shepard v. Top Hat Land & 
Cattle Co., supra."

[¶10.]  As a general rule, we look no further 
than the four corners of an instrument to determine the intent of the parties. 
However, this rule is only applicable where the language utilized clearly and 
unambiguously expresses the intent of the parties. Different rules are 
applicable where we perceive an ambiguity or double meaning present in the 
written instrument. Ambiguous contracts are agreements which, because of the 
language used, are obscure in their meaning. Amoco Production Company v. Stauffer 
Chemical Company of Wyoming, 612 P.2d  at 
465; Bulis v. Wells, Wyo., 565 P.2d 487, 490 
(1977). If, upon a reading of the questioned agreement, we perceive an 
ambiguity, then resort to extrinsic evidence is proper in order to fully 
determine the intent of the contracting parties. Mountain Fuel Supply Company v. Central 
Engineering & Equipment Company, Wyo., 611 P.2d 863 (1980). Our primary intent 
is always to give effect to the intention of the parties, Quin Blair Enterprises, Inc. v. Julien 
Construction Co., Wyo., 597 P.2d 945 (1979), and with an ambiguous agreement 
we will look to all of the surrounding circumstances and extrinsic evidence 
introduced with respect to intent. Peters 
Grazing Association v. Legerski, Wyo., 544 P.2d 449 (1975), reh. denied 546 P.2d 189 (1976). Generally, the question of intent is one of law, and fact 
questions only arise when the language utilized is not clear on its face. Goodwin v. Upper Crust of Wyoming, Inc., 
Wyo., 624 P.2d 1192 (1981).

[¶11.]  The parties to this appeal both contend 
that the easement agreement is clear on its face and that the intent of the 
parties can be determined from within the four corners. With this contention we 
cannot agree. From our viewpoint, the language contained in the easement 
agreement can be read in two ways. First of all, the contract can be read to 
provide an easement for the construction and maintenance of a stock-watering 
reservoir with a capacity water level of 17 feet above the creek bottom at the 
dam site. From another point of view, the contract can be read to provide for an 
easement of ten acres of land for the purpose of inundating that area for 
maintenance of a stock-watering reservoir. Given this double meaning, we believe 
it is necessary to resort to extrinsic evidence in order to determine the actual 
intent of the contracting parties.

[¶12.]  The evidence introduced by appellant in 
this case tends to reflect that the parties intended to enter into a contract 
providing for the construction and maintenance of a stock-watering reservoir 
with a storage capacity of 162.9 acre feet of water. Appellant testified that 
the concern of both of the landowners was the establishment of an available 
supply of water, and that little concern was expressed over how much land would 
be inundated. In fact, he also testified that given the condition of Beaver 
Creek, the landowners were more than happy to have the water. Considering these 
facts in conjunction with the facts that the application and map were utilized 
in the negotiations - the contents of which were incorporated to some degree in 
the contract - we are of the opinion that the intention of Parkinson was to 
grant an easement to appellant for the construction of a reservoir on his 
property which would have a capacity of 162.9 acre feet with a high-water line 
of 17 feet above the creek bottom at the dam site.

[¶13.]  Having reached this conclusion, we are 
also of the opinion that the utilization of the "10 acres, more or less" 
language by the parties was merely an estimation on their part of the amount of 
acreage that would be inundated. We find that the "more or less" language 
indicates that the amount of land to be inundated was not of the essence of the 
contract. Overly v. Treasurer and 
Receiver General, 344 Mass. 188, 181 N.E.2d 660 (1962); Annot., 1 A.L.R.2d 
9, and cases contained therein. As is stated in 77 Am Jur 2d, Vendor and 
Purchaser, § 100, p. 285:

"* * * The use of the 
words `more or less' excludes the assumption of an exact number of acres and 
makes it clear that the precise dimensions of the property are not of the 
essence of the contract * * *."

[¶14.]  In this case, the more precise 
description in the contract was the reference to the high-water line of the 
reservoir and the amount of storage capacity of the reservoir noted in the 
application.

[¶15.]  Read together, the provisions of the 
contract contemplate the creation of an easement for the formation of a 
reservoir with a high-water line of 17 feet above the creek bottom at the dam 
site. Any reference to the acreage to be inundated was merely in the form of an 
estimation and, under the evidence, we are convinced that the parties did not 
intend the same to be controlling. The intent of the parties was to provide for 
a source of stock water rather than to grant an easement for a specified number 
of acres.

[¶16.]  Having come to these conclusions, we 
reject the trial judge's construction of the agreement and hold that the 
contract gives the appellant the right to inundate as much of appellee's land as 
is necessary to fill the reservoir to a level of 17 feet above the creek bottom 
at the dam site. This is the intention we derive from the evidence, and the 
agreement, with this interpretation, is binding upon the 
appellee.

[¶17.]  Reversed.