Court Opinion

ID: 9884180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:44:44.410642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:36.039172
License: Public Domain

Wbinteatjb, C. J.
(dissenting in part). I join in the majority opinion with respect to the issues relating to the boathouse and the proposed subdivision, but disagree with the conclusion reached on the question whether a *428portion of the pond may be filled to permit safe and comfortable bathing.
The pond covers some 40 acres. A substantial portion was included in the conveyance from plaintiff to defendants’ predecessor in title. To insure enjoyment of the whole pond the deed contained the reciprocal covenants quoted in the majority opinion.
The majority hold that the proposed improvement may not be made, even in the presence of reasonable necessity. That conclusion, presupposes that the covenant as drawn bars the improvement, and it is that hypothesis with which I disagree.
The parties wanted a common opportunity to boat, fish, skate, cut ice, hunt and bathe, in terms of a whole pond, rather than in terms of every cubic inch of it. Upon plaintiff’s thesis, it would follow, for example, that he contracted away his right to replace his own boathouse with a larger one, or to build a pier for bathing or boating, for such action would deny defendants access to every bit of the pond in violation of plaintiff’s parallel covenant. A restraint of that kind seems to me to be so unreasonable that we should not find it unless the language used unmistakably shows it was intended.
There is no express restriction upon the right of either party to use his portion of the pond for bathing. On the contrary, the parties sought to give each other additional rights in the other’s holdings. The covenants should be construed to assure the additional rights without trenching upon the primary right of each in his own property so long as that adjustment is consonant with their primary purpose. It should be “assumed that the possessor of the servient tenement has all the privileges of use of that tenement which are not inconsistent with a reasonable exercise by the owner of the easement of his particular privileges.” 2 American Law of Property (1952), § 8.66, p. 279; cf. Hyland v. Fonda, 44 N. J. Super. 180 (App. Div. 1957).
There is not a word which affirmatively restrains either party’s use or improvement of his property for bathing. The *429surface area of the whole pond is estimated at 1,800,000 square feet. The proposed fill would reduce it by about 2,970 square feet, or l/6th of 1% of the whole. I cannot find any inconsistency with a reasonable exercise by plaintiff of his privileges. The impact upon his opportunity to boat, fish, skate, cut ice, hunt and bathe would be picayune.
The majority stress the aesthetics. I find no relation between aesthetics and the covenant here involved. If to that end plaintiff wanted to restrict his grantee’s right to bathe and to improve his property, he should have bargained for it directly. We should not accomplish it for him indirectly by a strained extension of the reservation he fashioned.
I would modify the judgment accordingly.
I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice Jacobs and Mr. Justice Francis join in this opinion.
For affirmance—Justices Heher, Wacheneeld, Burling and Proctor—4.
For modification—Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs and Francis—3.