Court Opinion

ID: 8309733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-17 13:46:43.242105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:44:40.731450
License: Public Domain

Dyer, D. J.,
(orally.) The difficulties in the way of maintaining the counter-claims interposed by the. defendants seem to be insurmountable. By the contract, dated July 24, 1855, the Fox & Wisconsin River Improvement Company granted to Doty and the Reeds the water-power in question. The corporation, in consideration of that grant, received the real estate mentioned in the contract, the canal by means of which the hydraulic power was supplied not being then completely finished. The improvement company agreed by the same contract to complete the canal in the manner therein prescribed within the time fixed by the charter of the company, which time expired in the year 1856. These are matters which are undisputed. The water-power and property then conveyed to Doty and the Reeds were delivered to them, and they and their successors have ever since had the possession and enjoyment thereof. Some wojrk was done by the improvement company upon the canal in pursuance of the provisions of the contract, and as contemplated by the parties, and it was then turned over to Doty and the Reeds, but not in a fully-completed condition. Up to that time Doty and the Reeds had the right to call upon the improvement company to perform its covenant by making the canal 100 feet wide at the bottom thereof, according to the terms of the contract. But they did not do that; and it appears here from the testimony and as part of the history of. the case that Doty and the Reeds regarded the canal as completed. At least they'accepted it. They never called upon the Fox & Wisconsin Improvement Company to make the canal 100 feet wide. And admitting that there was a breach of covenant when the time expired within which the canal was to be made of that width, all that Doty and the Reeds thereafter had, if anything, was a right of action against the improvement company to recover damages for their non-fulfillment of that covenant. But it appears that no action of any sort was taken by Doty and the Reeds, either in the form of a claim of damages or to enforce performance of the covenant. They seem to have rested content with the canal as it was, and so it continued in the condition in which it was originally constructed for a period of between 19 and 20 years, and to the time when Doty conveyed to Lawson.
In the light of these facts I think we must regard the covenant m question as extinguished by the acts of Doty and the Reeds, and that *899it had no vitality at the time this transfer was made to Lawson. It is part of the history of the case — at least it has so been stated, and the court has accepted it as an undisputed fact — that the property of the Pox & Wisconsin Improvement Company was sold under a mortgage foreclosure; that it was hid off by a third party, who after-wards conveyed it to the Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company, and that company afterwards conveyed the same to the United States. And I am unable to avoid the conclusion that, when the transfer was made to Lawson, what the parties must necessarily- have had in view were such covenants in this contract between the improvement company and Doty and the Eeeds as were then in force, and as were then prospective in their character and operation; because it would be absurd to say that Lawson and Doty, when they made their agreement on December 31, 1875, had in mind any covenants or agreements in the contract between the improvement company and Doty and the Eeeds, which had become by the acts of the parties, or other cause, extinct. Applying to the case familiar rules of construction, we must, in construing this agreement between Doty and wife and Lawson, take only into consideration such covenants in the contract between the improvement company and Doty and the Eeeds as were in esse at the time of the transfer to Lawson. And the acts of the parties, the manner in which this canal and water-power were dealt with and were used during the long term of years which elapsed between the making of the contract of 1855 and the conveyance to Lawson, seem to afford conclusive evidence that the covenant to make the canal 100 feet in width was regarded as having no longer any effect. The interests and rights of the improvement company in the property had become extinguished by virtue of the proceedings under which the title became ultimately vested in the United States. These parties were all living at Menasha. The court must presume that they understood the status of affairs and the condition of the property ; and, construing the contract in the light of all the surroundings and of all the circumstances in which the parties were placed at the time, it seems to me the conclusion is unavoidable that this covenant in the contract between the improvement company and,Doty and the Eeeds, that this canal should be made 100 feet wide at the bottom, had become extinguished by the lapse of time and the acquiescence of the parties. And, as I have stated, it is not, I think, to be successfully denied that the clause in the Lawson conveyance referring to covenants in the improvement company contract, was intended to cover such things as were yet to be done by the improvement com*900pany. And so, upon the grounds and for the reasons stated, I think the first counter-claim cannot be maintained.
Now, as to the second counter-claim, which has its source in that covenant in the contract between the improvement company and Doty and the Reeds which provides that the party of the first part “will not construct, or allow to he constructed, any dam or other work below ofi said river which shall raise the water above the ordinary stage at the foot of the rapids at Menasha, aforesaid,” as I understand the learned counsel for the defendant, his position is that this covenant is.equivalent in law to such a covenant against incumbrances as is usually incorporated in conveyances of real estate; and he has read to the court various cases in which it has been held that a breach of a covenant against incumbrances occurred where, for example, there was a highway over the land conveyed, and the grantee in the conveyance knew, at the time he took it, that the highway was in existence upon the land. Is this clause equivalent to such a covenant against incumbrances as I have just spoken of; that is, a covenant on the part of the improvement company that there did not exist, and should not in the future exist, a dam or other work below on the river which should raise the water above the ordinary stage at the foot of the rapids at Menasha? I think not. A distinction is to be taken between the covenants on this subject in this contract and an ordinary covenant against incumbrances, which is well understood to be a covenant that relates to the past — relates to what may have been done in the past with reference to the property that is conveyed. The clause which we are considering in this contract is a clause which was intended to cover things which might be done in the future. Its language is, “The party of the first part doth further covenant that it will not construct and will not allow” — that is, will not allow to be constructed — “any dam or other work below on said river. ”
We find it to be an admitted fact in the case that at the time the contract was ma'de there was a dam in existence on the river below the rapids at Menasha, namely, the dam at Appleton which has been spoken of. That dam was in existence, I say, at the time this contract was made, and it must be presumed that the parties knew that fact, and that they contracted with reference to it at the time. Then we find, furth'er, as I have before remarked, that all the rights and interests of the improvement company passed from it by the mortgage foreclosure; that the Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company became vested with these rights, and that they were ultimately acquired by the United States. And then the United States, by virtue *901of its sovereign power and authority, took charge of this improvement, and, for the purpose of improving the navigation of the river, constructed in place of the old wooden dam, what has been spoken oí as the present solid masonry dam, which I understand counsel to concede is of no greater height than the old dam would have been if it had been in a proper state of repair; so that we have a case where, at the time the contract of 1855 was made, the parties to it on both sides knew that a dam was then in existence across the river. The proofs show that Lawson was long a resident of Menasha. He made this contract with Doty and wife in December, 1875, and at that time the government dam had been constructed. Now can it be said, in the first place, that Lawson was in a position, after he made this contract with Doty, to complain of the existence of that dam at Appleton ? And, in the second p] ace, can it be said that the Wisconsin Improvement Company, within the language and meaning of this contract, allowed the dam to be constructed ? It seems to me that both of these questions must be answered in the negative. In defining the word “allow,” as it is used in that contract, we must take it in its ordinary and popular sense, and there is quite clearly implied in the use of that word the understanding or expectation of the parties at the time that the improvement company would continue in such relation to the property that it might, if so disposed, by some affirmative act on its part, facilitate or permit the construction of a dam below the rapids, and this it was intended by the contract to prevent. The word “allow,” in its ordinary sense, means “to grant,” “to admit,” “to afford,” or “toyield,” “to grant license to,” “to permit;” from which is implied a power to grant some privilege or permission.
No argument is needed to show that the Fox & Wisconsin Improvement Company was not in a position to do any such tiling as that when the government entered upon this enterprise and rebuilt this dam. The improvement company was in a position whore it could prevent nothing; it could suffer nothing. The United States could proceed in the construction of this dam independently of the improvement company, without its consent, against its protest. And I think it must have been in the contemplation of the parties to the contract of 1855, at that time, that the Fox & Wisconsin Improvement Company would continue in its relations to the property as then existing, and that it was intended by the contract to deprive it of the right, by any affirmative act on its part while exercising authority and control over the improvement, to allow a dam to be constructed which should raise the water above'the ordinary stage at *902the foot of the rapids. It is true, as suggested by Mr. Hooper, that the question of the powers and rights of the United States with reference to this property is a grave one, and for a correct solution of it in all its bearings much more consideration may be needed than we are able to give to it now. But at present I am not able to see how the argument is to be met, that when the United States stepped in and acquired dominion and control over this property for the purpose of improving navigation, it had the right by virtue of its sovereign power — so far, at least, as the interests of the parties now before the court are concerned — to build the Appleton dam; and I do not see how that act of the government can be regarded as one covenanted against by the Fox & Wisconsin Improvement Company when that company made its contract of 1855 with Doty and the Reeds.
These are at present my views upon the questions here presented, and it results that in the opinion of the court the second counterclaim is not maintainable.