Opinion ID: 1850435
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Who Breached the Contract in the First Instance?

Text: The complaint filed by the Smiths alleged that they executed an agreement with Snow Lake setting forth the terms and conditions under which they would utilize their easement and remove the pipe from their property. They complained that when their agents attempted on September 29, 1986, to remove the pipe under the terms of the agreement, Snow Lake and Overstreet interfered with the right to use their easement to transport the pipe. Where a private right of way exists, the owners of the dominant and servient tenements must use such way in such a manner so as not to interfere with one another's utilization thereof. Feld v. Young Men's Hebrew Association of Vicksburg, 208 Miss. 451, 458, 44 So.2d 538, 540 (1950) (quoting 2 Thompson on Real Property, § 584 p. 190 (Permanent Ed.)); Sumrall v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 232 Miss. 141, 147-49, 97 So.2d 914, 916-17 (1957); Lindsey v. Shaw, 210 Miss. 333, 339-40, 49 So.2d 580, 584 (1950); D.L. Fair Lumber Co. v. Weems, 196 Miss. 201, 219-21, 16 So.2d 770, 772-73 (1944). Snow Lake, as grantor of the easement, had a right to protect its water system, key components of which lay directly beneath and adjacent to the easement held by the Smiths. By the same token, the Smiths had an affirmative obligation to avoid damage to Snow Lake property in using their easement across the East Well Lot. The chancellor found as a fact the Smiths and their contractor were  acting pursuant to the agreement previously executed on [September 12, 1986], when Carney Smith and his drivers entered Snow Lake property during the nighttime on September 29th. The chancellor further found that no explanation was offered for the extreme actions taken by Snow Lake and Overstreet on the night of the 29th and that the Smiths were entitled to damages because the plaintiffs breached the agreement concluded between the parties. We think these findings were manifestly wrong. There is no evidence in the record that any person at any time prior to September 29th presented a certificate of insurance to Snow Lake which complied with paragraph 5 of the agreement between the parties. Indeed, the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary. The parties and their attorneys specifically agreed to a particular course of conduct, and that intended course of conduct was ignored by the Smiths and their contractor. In short, the proof shows the Smiths breached the agreement in the first instance. The Smiths' failure to provide the required certificate of insurance relieved Snow Lake and Overstreet from performance of the terms of the contract. When either party to a contract fails to perform any of his terms, the contract has been broken. Matheney v. McClain, 248 Miss. 842, 849, 161 So.2d 516, 519-20 (1964). Moreover, a party who has breached a contract may not himself maintain a suit for breach of the contract against the other party. Brent v. Corbin, 252 Miss. 464, 471, 173 So.2d 430, 433 (1965) (A party to a contract who is himself in default cannot maintain a suit for its breach.). See also Dawson's Dependents v. Delta Western Exploration Co., 245 Miss. 335, 343, 147 So.2d 485, 487 (1962); National Burial Association v. Wright, 21 So.2d 589, 590 (Miss. 1945). In addition to their failure to present a certificate of insurance, the Smiths never obtained the required work passes, and Snow Lake never received the $200.00 charged for bulldozing a temporary road across the East Well Lot as required by the terms of the contract. We agree with Snow Lake and Overstreet that these were material breaches and that the chancellor was manifestly wrong when he failed to take into account the undisputed evidence of the Smiths' multiple breaches. Of course, the Smiths, having filed no brief, make no claim otherwise.