Title: Pratt v. Griese
Citation: 196 Kan. 182, 409 P.2d 777
Docket Number: 44,304
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: January 22, 1966

196 Kan. 182 (1966)
409 P.2d 777
DON E. PRATT, Appellee,
v.
FRANCIS WILLIAM GRIESE, Appellant.
No. 44,304

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed January 22, 1966.
F.F. Wasinger, of Hays, was on the brief for the appellant.
Delmas L. Haney, of Hays, was on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HARMAN, C.:
Plaintiff-appellee brought this action to declare and protect by way of injunction an easement for railroad purposes over land owned by defendant-appellant. Trial to the court resulted in judgment for plaintiff from which defendant appeals.
The pertinent facts are not in dispute. The property in question is an easement over part of a strip of land connecting a 1753 acre *183 tract comprising the former Hays-Walker Army Airfield with the main line of the Union Pacific Railroad near Walker, Kansas. The part here involved is 11.97 acres, the easement over which was acquired by the United States government by condemnation proceedings initiated in 1943. Defendant owned the property then and still owns the surrounding land and the servient estate.
The original taking of the right of way was in a separate suit in eminent domain filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, judgment in which recited in part:
..............
"TRACT NO. 3.
"DESCRIPTION:
"NAME AND ADDRESS OF PURPORTED OWNER:
From the final judgment of confirmation it appears the sum of $98.79 was paid for the easement over Tract No. 3. The United States fenced the right of way, placed chat and ballast on it, laid track and operated a railroad over it.
The United States discontinued the Army Airfield in 1945, and in 1946 and 1947 it removed the rails and ties used in the railroad right of way in question. The fence was not thereafter maintained in a state of repair. In March of 1959 plaintiff purchased the airfield from the government, receiving a quitclaim deed from the government which in addition to the airfield also conveyed to him the easement in question, the latter being described as follows:
Plaintiff entered into possession of the airfield, using it for commercial purposes, and he thereafter began systematically removing the ballast from the right of way and trucking it away. At the hearing plaintiff testified he had considered plans for using the right of way in the construction of a railroad.
The district court upon joinder of issues made findings of fact in substance that there had been no express release of the easement by either the United States or by plaintiff and that there had been no termination of the easement by either nonuse or abandonment on the part of either.
Defendant now urges the sole proposition that the court erred in finding that the United States had not abandoned the easement, *185 basing this contention on the facts that the government discontinued and abandoned the airfield in 1945, then removed the track from the right of way in 1946 and 1947, and in 1959 sold the airfield, and defendant claims that all of these acts constitute an abandonment of the right of way for the purposes for which it had been taken. Hence we are not concerned with the termination of an easement in any other manner than by abandonment, and more precisely here, abandonment by the original holder, the federal government.
However created, an easement for a railroad right of way is limited by the use for which the easement is acquired, and when that use is abandoned the easement is terminated and the property reverts to the owner of the servient estate. (Abercrombie v. Simmons, 71 Kan. 538, 81 Pac. 208.) If defendant's contention be correct then he must prevail in this action inasmuch as the title to the right of way would revert to him. (See, also, K.C. Rly. Co. v. Allen, 22 Kan. 285, 31 Am. Rep. 190.)
First it may be said, mere nonuse, for a limited time, of land condemned for public purposes, unless accompanied by failure to pay compensation, does not constitute abandonment (Matlack v. City of Wichita, 195 Kan. 484, 407 P.2d 510). However, as other elements are involved in this case is would serve no purpose to consider whether an abandonment resulted solely from mere nonuse for the particular duration here shown.
In 74 C.J.S., Railroads, § 117, pp. 541-542, it is stated:
A rule found in the overwhelming majority of cases on the subject is that evidence of an intention to abandon an easement for a roadroad right of way may be found in the deliberate removal of tracks rendering the operation of a railroad impossible. Some of those cases may be found in the annotation at 95 A.L.R.2d § 5, p. 482, et seq. Illustrative is MA. &amp; PA. RR. CO. v. MER.-SAFE, ETC., CO., 224 Md. 34, 166 A.2d 247, 95 A.L.R.2d 463 (1960), wherein a right of way was used for railroad purposes until November of 1958 when the company ceased all railroad operations over the land and removed the rails and ties therefrom. This was the only evidence of abandonment. The court said:
Other conduct may be indicative of abandonment. In the oft-cited Abercrombie case, wherein a railroad company failed to construct a railroad on a right of way obtained by it and later by deed conveyed the right of way to plaintiff, a private individual, the court, in discussing the original grant, said:
In Mammoth Cave Nat. Pk. Ass'n v. State High. Com., 261 Ky. 769, 88 S.W.2d 931, a railway company operated its railroad on the right of way in question until June, 1931; it removed the track later that year and in 1935 attempted to convey the right of way to an association for the purposes of a national park. It was held by these acts to have abandoned the right of way.
The easement in the case at bar was for a specific purpose. That purpose was stated in the official declaration of taking by the Secretary of War, referred to in the judgment, as follows:
This purpose is reiterated throughout the entire condemnation proceedings, e.g., the judgment stated:
From the foregoing, it is clear that from the undisputed evidence an abandonment of the easement must be presumed. Chronologically reviewed, it showed that the government discontinued the military airfield, removed the tracks from the right of way and finally conveyed the airfield to a private individual.
These are acts of a decisive character. By them the government has conclusively rendered it impossible for the easement to be used for the purpose for which it was taken, viz, any military purpose, thereby constituting an abandonment of the easement and causing defendant's land to be relieved of it. As stated in Abercrombie, supra, "... the interest was taken for use as a right of way, it was limited to that use, and must revert when the use is abandoned ..." (p. 546) and the plaintiff acquired no interest by the purported conveyance of the right of way by the government to him.
The judgment of the district court is reversed with directions to enter judgment for defendant in accordance with the views herein expressed.
APPROVED BY THE COURT.