Case Name: McCULLOUGH et al. v. BROAD EXCH. CO. et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-02-24
Citations: 92 N.Y.S. 533
Docket Number: 
Parties: McCULLOUGH et al. v. BROAD EXCH. CO. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 92
Pages: 533–543

Head Matter:
(101 App. Div. 566.)
McCULLOUGH et al. v. BROAD EXCH. CO. et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
February 24, 1905.)
1. Easement—Extinguishment.
An easement created by deed is a valuable property right, and cannot be extinguished without compensation merely because of an unauthorized- or excessive use.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 17, Cent. Dig. Easements, § 83.1
2. Same—Injunction.
Where an easement permitted the use of an area and alley over the' servient estate, the inclusion of the dominant estate in other real property, to which the use of the easement was not appurtenant, in the space-on which one office building was erected, and constructed so that all of’ its parts were interdependent, and containing an opening into the area and alleyway, which was used by the tenants of those parts of the building which stood on land not entitled to the use of the easement, as well as the tenants occupying the dominant estate, entitled the owners of theservient estate to an injunction against the entire use of the easement" until the building should be so altered as to permit the easement to been joyed by the dominant estate alone.
3. Same.
Where an easement permitting ingress to and egress from the dominant estate is appurtenant to part of the premises on which an office building is erected, and heated by a single plant located on the dominant estate, and placed so that the easement might be used in the hauling of coal to a'nd removing of ashes from, the building, the owner of the easement is guilty of an excessive use thereof, in that he has no right to use it in generating heat to be transmitted to those portions of the building, not erected on the dominant estate.
O’Brien, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term.
Action by John G. McCullough and another against the Broad Exchange Company and another. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Modified.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J„ and HATCH, PATTERSON,. O’BRIEN, and LAUGHLIN, JJ.
Edward E. Sprague, for appellants.
Austen G. Fox, for respondents.

Opinion:
LAUGHLIN, J.
The action is brought to obtain a decree forfeiting and extinguishing the easement of the defendant the Broad Exchange Company for ingress and egress through an alleyway from its premises formerly known as No. 52 Exchange Place, over an open area and plaintiffs' premises to Beaver street. The easement was granted in a partition deed bearing date the 20th day of June, 1879, which embraced premises Nos. 38, 40, 42, and 52 Exchange Place, Nos. 25, 27, and 29 William street, and 51 and 53 Beaver street, and the buildings and premises in the rear. The defendant the Broad Exchange Company has succeeded to the title to the premises No. 52 Exchange Place, and the building in the rear thereof, and the plaintiffs own the premises Nos. 51 and 53 Beaver street. The easement related to an irregular open area in the interior of the block inclosed by the premises partitioned, all of which abutted thereon, and to a covered alleyway 10 feet in width over the premises 51 Beaver street, connecting the open area with Beaver street. It was expressly covenanted "that for the mutual advantage of all the property" partitioned and conveyed the open area "shall be forever left as an open space, and shall be unencumbered by any erections, except such walks as now cross the same, for the purpose of giving light and air and ingress and egress from all the premises herein described; said open spaces as.they now exist shall be maintained in good order and kept in good condition at the joint and equal expense of all the parties hereto"; and that the covenant should be held to be a covenant running with the land. The covenant with respect to the alley is that it "shall forever be left open, to the present height of the same, as a means of ingress and egress for the advantage of all the property hereinbefore conveyed and partitioned." It appears that at the time the partition deed was executed there were two low brick buildings on the premises known as No. 52 Exchange Place. The one fronting on the street covering the lot to the depth of 107 feet, and the one in the rear, being 34 feet in width, covering the lot within a few inches, and 116 feet in length. Both of these were office buildings. Prior to the commencement of the action the defendant the Broad Exchange Company became the owner of four lots, known as 44, 46, 48, and 50 Exchange Place, lying immediately to the east of its premises 52 Exchange Place, having an aggregate frontage of about 89 feet and 6 inches, and extending in depth 102 feet and 4 inches, and of several irregular lots adjoining 52 Exchange Place on the west, known as Nos. 54 and 56 Exchange Place, and 25, 27,. 29, 31, and 33 Broad street, having an aggregate frontage on Exchange Place of about 124 feet and 9 inches, and of 106 feet and 8 inches on Broad street. None of these lots except said 52 Exchange Place was embraced in the partition deed, or had appurtenant to it any right or interest in. the covenants or easements mentioned in the partition deed. These several lots together formed practically a parallelogram 236 feet long on Exchange Place, and 106 feet wide on Broad street, with the addition of the lot about 34 feet wide by 116 deep in the rear of the center of the parallelogram; it being the lot in the rear of 53 Exchange Place, and entitled to the enjoyment of the easement in connection therewith, and, for brevity in the opinion, it will be deemed part of, and referred to as, 53 Exchange Place.
The Broad Exchange Company is a New Jersey corporation, and, after acquiring title to these lots, and about the 1st day of May, 1900, it caused plans to be prepared for the erection of a single office building thereon, 30 stories in height, with front entrances on Broad street and Exchange Place, and a door in the rear opening upon that part of the premises which was dominant to the easement upon the rear courtyard or open space referred to in the said partition deed. This building was designed for the accommodation of about 7,000 occupants, and was to have 18 passenger elevators, and a common heating and power plant for all. The building was constructed in accordance with the plans by the defendant George A. Fuller Company for the Broad Exchange Company, and prior to the trial of the action it was completed and opened for the reception and occupation of tenants. The boilers and machinery for heating the building and operating the elevators are in that part of the premises appurtenant to the easement, but the heat and power are distributed into those parts of the building beyond the lines of the original lot No. 53 Exchange Place, which alone was dominant to the easement. It is found by the court that the building was erected without regard to the lines of lot 53 Exchange Place, and that it was designed as one concrete structure, with connecting halls and stairways throughout, and with interdependent relations between its various parts. The office space in that part of the building standing upon the lot formerly known as 53 Exchange Place constitutes only one-fifth of the entire office space of the building. The average consumption of coal for the generation of heat and power in the building is between 30 and 33 tons per day. When the building was planned it was intended that the coal should be brought in through this alley, and across the open area, and transmitted to the furnace room through coal chutes, and this course has been taken. The ashes from the furnace were designed to be, and are, removed over the areaway and through the alley. Each of the 18 passenger elevators affords access to any part of the building, and 8 of them are entirely upon the original dominant lot, and 7 others are partly over it. The waste paper, sweepings, and refuse from the entire office building are deposited in bins near the door opening into the open area referred to, and removed via. the alley. Employés and tenants of all parts of the building may use the doorway opening upon the area at will for passing out to Beaver street, or to the building from Beaver street, and some of them avail themselves of the opportunity thus afforded for using -the area and alley. The trial court has found that by thus constructing and using the office building the appellant owner has "so materially changed the condition of the original dominant tenement as to increase the burden of the servitude upon the subservient tenement of the plaintiffs, and to subject the servient tenement to the services of premises other than the premises originally dominant, and to render it impossible to separate the enjoyment of the original right from the enjoyment of the excess be yond the original right, and to make impossible the legitimate use of said easement." It has accordingly been decreed that the appellant owner has forfeited all its rights to the enjoyment of the easement* and that the same is forever forfeited and extinguished, and it is perpetually enjoined from using the same.
We find no definite evidence indicating that it would be feasible or practicable to alter the building in such manner that the tenants of that part of it which is constructed on the premises formerly known as 52 Exchange Place might be separated from the others, and, in the exercise of the lawful rights of the appellant owner, be permitted to use the alley and areaway for ingress and egress, or that the power plant and other use of which complaint is made might be likewise separated. However, it is not impossible to make this separation, and, if the .owner wishes to do so, we see no reason why it should not be permitted. Moreover, the office building may be destroyed or otherwise demolished or removed at any time, and in that event it would seem that the owner should be permitted to enjoy the easement in connection with that part of his premises to which the easement was appurtenant. The erection of the building upon its own land was lawful, and does not work a forfeiture of the easement. Rexford v. Marquis, 7 Lans. 249-262; Greene v. Canny, 137 Mass.64; Topling v. James, 13 C. B. N. S., 876. An unlawful or excessive use of an easement may be enjoined, but it is difficult to see upon what principle of law the court is authorized to declare it forever and altogether forfeited and extinguished because of an unauthorized or excessive use. It is a valuable property right, and we know of no authority for transferring its title, against the will of the owner, except by due process of law, involving just compensation.
It is also conceivable that an authorized and unauthorized use may be so intermingled as "to justify enjoining any use until the circumstances have so changed that the authorized use may be permitted without affording opportunity for the unauthorized use which it would be difficult to discover or prove. If this be the rule, a situation is here presented justifying an injunction, not against the excessive use, but restraining any use until the building is so altered or changed that that part of it which is on the dominant tenement may enjoy the easement without permitting its enjoyment by the tenants and occupants of other parts of the building who have no right thereto. Where the nature and extent of the use of the easement is, as here, unrestricted, the use by the dominant tenement might, of course, be enlarged or changed. Allen v. Gomme, 11 Ad. & El. 759; Arnold v. Fee, 148 N. Y. 214, 42 N. E. 588; Gillespie v. Weinberg, 148 N. Y. 238, 42 N. E. 676; Dand v. Kingscote, 6 M. & W. 173; Sloom v. Holliday, 30 Law Times, 757. But the owner of the dominant tenement may not subject the servient tenement to servitude or use in connection with other premises to which the easement is not appurtenant. Williams v. James, Law Rep. 2 C. P. 577. It is manifest, therefore, that although the appellant, as owner of the dominant tenement, might have lawfully devoted it to a .use that would have authorized and required a greater burden on this easement a.nd right of way than has now been imposed, yet the tenants of .those parts of the building not erected upon the premises No. 52 Exchange Place have no right to use the easement, and the owner has no right to enlarge the use of the easement for the benefit of those "parts of his office building which are upon.premises other than the dominant tenement. This applies to the removal of ashes, sweepings, _ and refuse,, as well as to bringing coal. It is not needful to inquire whether the owner of the dominant premises might establish thereon a plant for developing heat, light, or power, and transmitting the same to other-premises for hire, and thus subject the right of way to a more extensive use than that to which it is now put. That: might be a question of law,, and it might be a question of fact, depending on the reasonableness of the use. Williams v. James, supra. The case is not analogous to the-present situation. The coal and the heating power generated thereby are used directly for the benefit of the dominant tenement and adjacent premises of the appellant owner. It is no different in principle than if there were separate power plants, and the coal was passed over the-dominant tenements for use on the other premises, which the appellant clearly would have no right to do. Skull v. Glenister, 16 C. B. (N. S.) 80; Davenport v. Lamson, 21 Pick. 72; Webster v. Bach, Freeman's Rep. 246; Lawton v. Ward, Ld. Raymond, 75.
It is to be borne in mind that this right of way and easement were acquired by deed, and the rule is that such an easement is not extinguished, by nonuser, but only by grant or adverse possession. Smyles v. Hastings, 22 N. Y. 217; Welsh v. Taylor, 134 N. Y. 450, 31 N. E. 896,18 L. R. A. 535; Parker v. City of St. Paul, 47 Minn. 317, 50 N. W. 247.. Here there was no adverse possession, and nothing has been done with the intention of relinquishing the easement; but, on the contrary, it has-been constantly enjoyed, and the complaint merely is of a use unauthorized in part. It was formerly held in England that the easement of "ancient lights" might be lost or suspended until the premises were restored to their original condition by enlarging or changing the position: of the window, but it is doubtful whether that rule still prevails (Tap-ling v. Jones, 13 C. B. [N. S.] 876); and, moreover, it was never given place in our jurisprudence (Parker v. Foote, 19 Wend. 319), and would not be applicable to this case if it had. The appellant and those using the easement without authority would doubtless bé liable to the plaintiffs in damages. Dennis v. Sipperly, 17 Hun, 69; Rexford v. Marquis,, supra, 249, 262; Davenport v. Lamson, supra; Shroder v. Brenneman,. 23 Pa. 348; French v. Marstin, 32 N. H. 316. But it is manifest that it would be next to impossible to show the damages or to enforce the rights of the plaintiffs under an injunction confining the use to the tenants of and those using the dominant tenement. Although equity abhors forfeitures, and will in a proper case relieve against their enforcement, it will not aid their enforcement even where it would interfere-against the same at law.' 1 Pomeroy's Eq. Jur. (2d Ed.) § 450, 459. Yet the appellant owner is responsible for the situation which enables its tenants and. employés to use the easement, and render it impossible for the plaintiffs to know which have and which have not a right to such use. Therefore, while equity will not destroy the appellant owner's easement, it will grant the relief necessary to preserve the rights-of the plaintiffs. It is manifest- that these rights can only be effectively preserved by enjoining the appellant owner, from using the easement while its premises remain, in their present condition.
The appeal, in form, is by both defendants, but it is treated in the appellant's points as being by the Broad Exchange Company only; and no point is made that the injunction was unnecessary as against the Fuller Company, which has completed its contract.
The judgment should therefore be modified by striking out all provisions relating to a forfeiture of the easement, and modifying the injunction so as to enjoin and restrain the appellant owner, its officers, agents, and employés, from using the easement, and from furnishing occasion or extending, by implication or otherwise, any invitation to the tenants or persons having business with the tenants to use the easement, until such time as the building shall be so changed, altered, or arranged as to permit the enjoyment of the easement for the advantage of the dominant tenement only, with leave to the appellant owner to apply to the court, at the foot of the judgment, on notice to the plaintiffs or their successors in interest, when that time shall have arrived to vacate the injunction as to the dominant tenement, leaving the injunction, however, to stand permanently as to the remaining premises; and, as thus modified, the judgment should be affirmed, without costs of the appeal to either party. All concur, except O'BRIEN, J., who dissents.