Title: BILLINGS v O E LEE COMPANY

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12925 IN 'THE SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 CITY O F BILLINGS, a municipal corporation, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, 0. E. LEE C O M P A N Y and EIRE LAND AND MERCANTILE C O M P A N Y , Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Harwood, Galles and Gunderson, B i l l i n g s , Montana Dale F. Galles argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent : Kurth, Davidson and Calton, B i l l i n g s , Montana Calvin A. Calton argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted : September 26, 1975 f 1 1 V - 3 - - Filed : M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from a declaratory judgment by the d i s t r i c t court, Yellowstone County, i n favor of p l a i n t i f f City of Billings. The City brought t h i s action seeking t o have i t s r i g h t s under an 1885 easement established. A hearing was had and the d i s t r i c t court entered findings of f a c t , conclusions of law and judgment f o r the City. O n June 22, 1885, Perry W. McAdow and Clara L. McAdow, h i s wife, conveyed t o t h e Billings Water Power Company, a Montana corporation, by warranty deed c e r t a i n r e a l property consisting of a l o t , several s t r i p s of land and an easement through other property. The deed provided: If* * * the p a r t i e s of the f i r s t p a r t [McAdows] doth hereby further grant, bargain, s e l l , convey and con- firm unto t h e party of the second part [Billings Water Power Company], i t s successors and assigns, with t h e i r agents and employees the r i g h t t o enter upon and lay and construct, a l l such underground mains, pipes and acqueducts, a s the party of t h e second p a r t , i t s successors o r assigns may d e s i r e * ik ik and f o r t h a t purpose t o excavate a l l necessary ditches accross any portion of said section, wherein t o lay SUCK subterranean aqueducts, and a l s o f o r the purpose of repairing, changing o r removing, o r f o r any purpose connected with the management and operation of the same. 1 1 The deed goes on t o provide r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the grantee Billings Water Power Company: "* 9: ; k but the party of the second part i t s successors o r assigns s h a l l never be l i a b l e t o pay any sum o r damages whatever f o r the r i g h t of way f o r such subterran- ean aqueducts across any portion of such section f a r t h e r than the l i a b i l i t y t o replace the e a r t h and r e s t o r e t h e improvements so displaced removed o r broken t o the condition i n which the same was found when so removed a s near a s practicable, without unnecessary delay. I I Shortly a f t e r t h i s easement conveyance was granted, a 14-inch water l i n e was i n s t a l l e d . The grant of easement then passed through two other companies and i n a deed dated February 1, 1915, the City of Billings acquired t i t l e t o t h i s easement. In 1944 the City of Billings purchased a 36 foot r i g h t of way easement f o r $192.25, across t h e property granted i n the 1885 McAdow easement, the property then being owned by defendants' predecessor i n i n t e r e s t . The purpose of the easement was t o enable the City t o c l e a r , trench, l a y , construct, maintain, r e p a i r and operate a pipe l i n e f o r a water system f o r t h e City. The minutes of the October 24, 1944 c i t y council meeting a t which the above easement and payment were r a t i f i e d , makes no mention of the 1885 McAdow easement. In 1974 the City f i l e d t h i s declaratory judgment action seeking t o have i t s r i g h t s under the 1885 easement declared and thereby allow the City t o enter upon defendants' land t o lay, construct, excavate ditches f o r , i n s t a l l , maintain and r e p a i r a 36-inch water main along the l i n e and underground, without obliga- tion i n damages t o defendants other than the l i a b i l i t y t o replace the e a r t h and r e s t o r e the improvements so displaced o r broken t o the condition i n which the same was found when so removed as near a s practicable, without unnecessary delay. Following t r i a l , the d i s t r i c t court made these findings of f a c t and conclusions of law: "FINDINGS O F F A C T I. The City of Billings i s the successor i n i n t e r e s t of Billings Water Power Company A - and the owner of a l l r i g h t s under t h a t c e r t a i n indenture from McAdows t o Billings Water Company dated June 22, 1885, recorded November 17, 1885, i n Book ' A ' , page 580, records of Yellowstone County, Montana. "11. Defendants' property w a s encompassed within the above-described McAdow indenture of which Defendants had constructive notice a t the time they purchased t h e i r property. "111. The terms of the said McAdow indenture grant Billings Water Power Company a s grantee, i t s successors and assigns, c l e a r r i g h t t o build a l l such underground mains, pipes and aqueducts a s they may d e s i r e , provided only t h a t t h e grantee, i t s successors and assigns s h a l l replace the e a r t h i n ditches and replace and r e s t o r e any improvements on such land removed or broken o r displaced o r damaged i n t h e course of excavating any such d i t c h o r placing any such aqueduct, and subject t o other terms therein stated. 11 "CONCLUSIONS O F LAW I. The City of Billings has the legal r i g h t a s successor i n i n t e r e s t under the above- described FIcAdow indenture deed dated 1885 t o place a t h i r t y - s i x inch water main i n the property of the De- fendants a t the location a s described i n p l a i n t i f f ' s Complaint. I I Judgment was entered by reason of the findings and conclusions on July 26, 1974. Defendants appeal from the f i n a l j udgment . The sole issue presented f o r t h i s Court's review i s whether the 1885 easement under which the City claims was extinguished by abandonment (1) because of nonuser, and/or (2) because the City purchased a r i g h t of way and received a deed of easement over the same property i n 1944? Defendants admit t o constructive notice of the 1885 McAdow r i g h t s and there is no quarrel that the r i g h t s i n question were acquired by a grant and not by use. Therefore, the language of the original document controls. Section 67-606, R.C.M. 1947. In Wyrick v. Hoefle, 136 Mont. 172, 174, 346 P.2d 563, t h i s Court, quoting from Hochsprung v. Stevenson, 82 Mont. 222, 266 P. 406, said: 11 1 The intention of the grantor i n a deed is t o be gathered from a consideration of the e n t i r e instrument, taking into consideration a l l of i t s provisions, and every part must be given e f f e c t i f reasonably practicable and consistent with i t s evident purpose and operation, "not, indeed, a s it is presented i n particular sentences o r para- graphs, but according t o its e f f e c t when viewed a s an entirety." * * *"' Thus the City was u t i l i z i n g only that part land reasonably necessary and consistent with the purposes f o r which the easement was granted by asking the d i s t r i c t court t o declare the City had the r i g h t under the 1885 easement t o build the 36-inch line. The landowners offered no evidence t h a t such was unreasonable, but r e l y solely on the abandonment contention. The a c t s claimed t o constitute the abandonment m u s t be of a character so decisive and conclusive a s t o indicate a c l e a r i n t e n t t o abandon the easement. 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses 5103, p. 507. Defendants admit t h a t nonuse does not of i t s e l f produce an abandonment no matter how long continued. Restatement of Property, $504. A s a general r u l e an easement acquired by grant o r reservation cannot be l o s t by mere nonuser f o r any length of time, no matter how great. 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses 5105, p. 509. Intent of governmental body t o abandon must be shown by o f f i c i a l a c t , and not mere implication. City of Stockton v. Miles and Sons, Inc., D.C.Cal., 165 F.Supp. 554. A s a general r u l e t h e question of abandonment is one of f a c t , not of law. Tamalpais Land & Water Co. v. Northwestern Pac. R. Co., 73 Cal.App.2d 917, 167 P.2d 825. A c a r e f u l review of the record here reveals no f a c t s t h a t would support abandonment by nonuse o r together with nonuse demonstrate any i n t e n t by the City t o abandon t h i s easement. The second i s s u e raised by defendants f o r abandonment by the purchase of r i g h t of way by the City i n 1944 has l i t t l e per- suasion a s there was no case law c i t e d t o the Court t o support t h i s type of abandonment. The s t a t u t e r e l i e d on by defendants, section 67-611(3), R.C.M. 1947, provides t h a t an easement may be extinguished: "BY the performance of any a c t upon e i t h e r tenement, by the owner of the servitude, o r with h i s assent, which i s incompatable with i t s nature o r exercise J ; * *.I' When the City purchased the easement i n 1944, it did not receive anything more than it already owned. The 1944 a c t i v i t y by the City was not an a c t incompatible with t h e nature o r exercise of the 1885 easement. The judgment of the d i s t r i c t cou IJe Concur: . \ i r r, ' . . ' 6 ' .k!A</,-+ . s )-. # . y!- ! J . . +.- -*-- L ' . - , Chief ~ u s < i & e - 2 7 , . I , L.'," , ; ; - , 7 ' fid4 ; , L ( 7 ; . . Justices. -