STOUT v REITER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 14540 I N THE SUPREME C W O THE STATE O IJDJWANA O F F 1979 EmmFa G. B NT L. O IA m r and u mur, P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, HEXMAN R E m and DOREESJ 0. R E m , Defendants and Appellants. Appeal £ran: D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable Iiobert Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: muat and Martinson, Billings, Wntana William G. Wt argued, Billings, bbntana For Respondents: Moulton, Bellingham, mngo and Mather, Billings, IWntana R. H. Bellingham argued, Billings, IWntana Wrruw, Sedivy and Olsen, Bozeman, mntana Jams H. IWrrm argued, Bozeman, bbntana Submitted: Decided: March 20, 1979 MAY 3 0 1979 J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court. Mr. P l a i n t i f f s , t h e S t o u t s , brought t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l ~ i s t r i c t , Yellow- s t o n e County, t o e n j o i n d e f e n d a n t s , t h e R e i t e r s , from u s i n g c e r t a i n i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h e s and from e n t e r i n g upon p l a i n t i f f s ' p r o p e r t y f o r t h e purpose of u s i n g t h e d i t c h e s . D e f e n d a n t s c o u n t e r c l a i m e d s e e k i n g t o e n j o i n p l a i n t i f f s from i n t e r f e r i n g with defendants' r i g h t t o use t h e ditches. The case, which was t r i e d b e f o r e t h e Honorable R o b e r t H . Wilson s i t t i n g without a jury, resulted i n an order perpetually e n j o i n i n g d e f e n d a n t s from u s i n g t h e d i s p u t e d i r r i g a t i o n ditches. D e f e n d a n t s a p p e a l from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r . The c a s e a r o s e b e c a u s e o f a d i s a g r e e m e n t o v e r t h e meaning o f t h e l a n g u a g e u s e d i n a w a r r a n t y d e e d t o r e s e r v e a n e a s e m e n t f o r d e f e n d a n t s when t h e y s o l d a p a r c e l o f l a n d t o p l a i n t i f f s ' predecessors. The d i s p u t e d l a n g u a g e r e a d s : ". . . r e s e r v i n g a n easement 8 f e e t i n width f o r t h e i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h , a s now l o c a t e d , r u n n i n g from t h e Y e l l o w s t o n e R i v e r on t h e W e s t t o t h e E a s t l i n e of said t r a c t f o r the p u r p o s e o f i r r i g a t i n g p r o p e r t y owned by t h e p a r t i e s of t h e f i r s t p a r t l y i n g t o t h e North and E a s t of s a i d t r a c t . . ." I n 1965 t h e l a n d p r e s e n t l y owned by p l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t s was e n t i r e l y owned by L e l a n d McMorris. A t that t i m e , William Neibauer, a r e a l t o r , e f f e c t e d a n agreement whereby d e f e n d a n t s p u r c h a s e d t h e e n t i r e t r a c t from McMorris and simultaneously s o l d a f i f t e e n a c r e p a r c e l , s u b j e c t t o t h e r e s e r v a t i o n o f c e r t a i n e a s e m e n t s , t o Donald and G r a c e Underwood by a c o n t r a c t f o r d e e d . The f i f t e e n a c r e p a r c e l , now d e s c r i b e d a s T r a c t 1, C e r t i f i c a t e o f S u r v e y # 9 9 1 , i s l o c a t e d a l o n g t h e Y e l l o w s t o n e R i v e r a n d c o n t a i n s a number o f i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h e s which h a v e been u s e d s i n c e 1965 t o i r r i g a t e defendants' adjoining property. The pump shown i n t h i s diagram of t h e f i f t e e n a c r e p a r c e l i s l o c a t e d i n a c h a n n e l of t h e r i v e r and pumps w a t e r i n t o t h e e n t i r e d i t c h system. A t t h e t i m e defendants sold t h e f i f t e e n a c r e t r a c t t o t h e Underwoods, t h e r e was a d i t c h r u n n i n g d i r e c t l y from t h e pump t o t h e e a s t e r n boundary of t h e t r a c t . Shortly a f t e r t h e Underwoods and d e f e n d a n t s completed t h e i r t r a n s a c t i o n , t h i s d i t c h was plowed under and a new d i t c h w a s dug t o t h e south. I t now forms t h e s o u t h e r n p o r t i o n of D i t c h No. 6. I n e s s e n c e , d e f e n d a n t s p r e s e n t two i s s u e s f o r review: 1. Whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r e n j o i n i n g d e f e n d a n t s from u s i n g a c e r t a i n i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h with connecting l a t e r a l s , easements f o r which a r e c l a i m e d by d e f e n d a n t s t o have been r e s e r v e d i n them i n a c o n t r a c t f o r deed and w a r r a n t y d e e d . 2 . Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t an i n j u n c t i o n i n a case of disputed t i t l e o r r i g h t before d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e t i t l e o r r i g h t i n a n a c t i o n a t law. Counsel f o r t h e Yellowstone County Farm Bureau and t h e Montana Farm Bureau F e d e r a t i o n a p p e a r e d on a p p e a l a s amicus c u r i a e a r g u i n g t h a t t h e primary i s s u e on a p p e a l s h o u l d be whether d e f e n d a n t s own t h e d i t c h r i g h t s a s t h e y e x i s t e d a t t h e t i m e of t h e i r f i f t e e n a c r e t r a n s a c t i o n w i t h p l a i n t i f f s ' predecessor. A d d r e s s i n g t h i s l a t t e r argument f i r s t , w e n o t e t h a t t h e argument assumes t h a t p r i o r t o 1965 t h e d i t c h system c o n s t i t u t e d a s e r v i t u d e upon t h e f i f t e e n a c r e p a r c e l and a n appurt e n a n c e t o t h e l a n d now owned by d e f e n d a n t s . l i n e s , s e c t i o n 67-601, MCA, R.C.M. Along t h e s e 1947, now s e c t i o n 70-17-101 provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "The f o l l o w i n g l a n d b u r d e n s , o r s e r v i t u d e s upon l a n d , may b e a t t a c h e d t o o t h e r l a n d a s i n c i d e n t s o r a p p u r t e n a n c e s , and a r e t h e n c a l l e d easements: " (11) The r i g h t of h a v i n g w a t e r f l o w w i t h o u t d i m i n u t i o n o r d i s t u r b a n c e of any k i n d . " However, s e c t i o n 67-611, MCA, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 70-17-111 provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t t h a t : "A s e r v i t u d e i s e x t i n g u i s h e d : "1. By t h e v e s t i n g of t h e r i g h t t o t h e s e r v i t u d e and t h e r i g h t t o t h e s e r v i e n t tenement i n t h e same p e r s o n ; " I t i s a p p a r e n t , t h e n , t h a t t h e d i t c h system c o u l d n o t have been a n a p p u r t e n a n c e t o d e f e n d a n t s ' l a n d p r i o r t o 1965 be- c a u s e t h e dominant and s e r v i e n t tenements w e r e p a r t of t h e same p a r c e l . The easement i n t h i s c a s e was c r e a t e d a t t h e t i m e t h e p a r c e l s w e r e s e p a r a t e d , and w e must look t o t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t which c r e a t e d t h e easement t o d e t e r m i n e what i t i n c l u d e s . The complete r e s e r v a t i o n found i n t h e w a r r a n t y deed reads a s follows: ". . . r e s e r v i n g , however, t o t h e p a r t i e s of t h e f i r s t p a r t , t h e i r h e i r s and a s s i g n s , an easement 30 f e e t i n w i d t h f o r a roadway, a s t h e same now e x i s t s , r u n n i n g North and South a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r o u g h t h e m i d d l e of t h e s a i d t r a c t f o r t h e p u r p o s e of a c c e s s t o p r o p e r t y owned by t h e p a r t i e s of t h e f i r s t p a r t l y i n g t o t h e North o f s a i d t r a c t ; and r e s e r v i n g a n 8 ffor the easement - - e e t i n w i d t h - - i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h , - - l o c a t e d , r u n n i n g --- a s now from t h e Y e l lowstone R i v e r - - West - - - on t h e - t o t h e E a s t l i n e of s a - -i d t r a c t - - p u r p o s e of i r r i g a t i n g for the the parties the f i r s t p r o p e r t y owned -p a r t l y i n g - -e North - - a s t - s a i d t o th and E - of t r a c t ; and a l s o r e s e r v i n g a n easement f o r t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e pump which pumps t h e w a t e r from t h e Yellowstone R i v e r i n t o s a i d d i t c h and f o r i n g r e s s and e g r e s s t h e r e t o as n e c e s s a r y and f o r s e r v i c i n g and r e p a i r s , a l s o known a s T r a c t No. 1 of C e r t i f i c a t e o f Survey No. 991." (Emphasis added.) a of Defendants a r g u e t h a t t h e d i t c h r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e warr a n t y deed and t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed i s t h e d i t c h r u n n i n g n o r t h and s o u t h . They a r g u e t h a t t h i s i s a main d i t c h o r " d i k e " d i t c h and t h a t t h e t e r m " d i t c h " a s used i n t h e deed i n c l u d e s t h e e n t i r e d i t c h system, i n c l u d i n g t h e l a t e r a l ditches. I n proposing t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , they seek t o p l a c e g r e a t s i g n i f i c a n c e on t h e p h r a s e " f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f i r r i g a t i n g p r o p e r t y owned by t h e p a r t i e s o f t h e f i r s t p a r t l y i n g t o t h e N o r t h and E a s t o f s a i d t r a c t . " They c o n t e n d t h a t t h e o n e d i t c h , now plowed u n d e r , would n o t b e s u f f i c i e n t t o i r r i g a t e a l l of d e f e n d a n t s ' land. Testimony adduced a t t r i a l s u g g e s t s , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t found, t h a t d e f e n d a n t s s o l d t h e l a n d w i t h t h e a p p a r e n t i n t e n t i o n o f b u i l d i n g a new n o r t h / s o u t h d i t c h on t h e i r p r o p e r t y which would h a v e been f e d by t h e d i t c h t h e y expressly reserved. They p o s t p o n e d b u i l d i n g a new d i t c h because they r e c e i v e d permission t o u s e t h e e n t i r e d i t c h s y s t e m from t h e Underwoods i n r e t u r n f o r i r r i g a t i n g t h e Underwoods' p r o p e r t y . "This Court w i l l n o t r e v e r s e t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e t r i a l c o u r t u n l e s s t h e r e i s a c l e a r preponderance of t h e evidence a g a i n s t such f i n d i n g s . " v. Peake (1978), St.Rep. Mont. 1295, 1302. , Schulz 583 P.2d 425, 430, 35 Here t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s a r e a d e q u a t e l y s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . S i n c e t h e i s s u e concerning t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of t h e remedy o r t h e t h e o r y o n which t h e c a s e was t r i e d was n o t r a i s e d i n t h e lower c o u r t , it should n o t be considered on appeal. Kearns v . M c I n t y r e C o n s t . Co. , - 567 P.2d 433, 440, 34 S t . 3 e p . (1977), 703, 712. Mont . Defendants a c q u i e s c e d t o t h e i n j u n c t i o n t h e o r y by c o u n t e r c l a i m i n g f o r a n i n j u n c t i o n and r e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e c o n t r a c t . The ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t d e c i d e d t h e i s s u e s o n t h e t h e o r y a d o p t e d by b o t h parties. ". . . [Wlhen a p a r t y h a s a d o p t e d o n e t h e o r y upon t h e t r i a l o f h i s c a s e , h e may n o t c h a n g e t h e t h e o r y on appeal. Co. ( C i t a t i o n o m i t t e d . ) " O'Hanlon v. Ruby Gulch Min. ( 1 9 2 2 ) , 6 4 Mont. 318, 326, 209 P. 1 0 6 2 , 1064. The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W e concur: Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e Chief J u s t i c e Haswell. df M r . % \ \
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
