BILLINGS v O E LEE COMPANY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12925 IN 'THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1975 C I T Y O BILLINGS, a m u n i c i p a l c o r p o r a t i o n , F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, 0 . E. LEE C M A Y and EIRE LAND O PN AND MERCANTILE COMPANY, Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R o b e r t Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Harwood, G a l l e s and Gunderson, B i l l i n g s , Montana Dale F. G a l l e s a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent : K u r t h , Davidson and C a l t o n , B i l l i n g s , Montana C a l v i n A . C a l t o n a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted : Filed : f11V - 3 - - September 26, 1975 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an a p p e a l from a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County, i n f a v o r of p l a i n t i f f C i t y of B i l l i n g s . The C i t y brought t h i s a c t i o n seeking t o have i t s r i g h t s under an 1885 easement e s t a b l i s h e d . A h e a r i n g was had and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law and judgment f o r t h e C i t y . O June 22, 1885, Perry W. McAdow and Clara L. McAdow, n h i s w i f e , conveyed t o t h e B i l l i n g s Water Power Company, a Montana c o r p o r a t i o n , by warranty deed c e r t a i n r e a l p r o p e r t y c o n s i s t i n g of a l o t , s e v e r a l s t r i p s of land and an easement through o t h e r property. The deed provided: ** If* t h e p a r t i e s of t h e f i r s t p a r t [McAdows] d o t h hereby f u r t h e r g r a n t , b a r g a i n , s e l l , convey and conf i r m unto t h e p a r t y of t h e second p a r t [ B i l l i n g s Water Power Company], i t s s u c c e s s o r s and a s s i g n s , w i t h t h e i r a g e n t s and employees t h e r i g h t t o e n t e r upon and l a y and c o n s t r u c t , a l l such underground mains, p i p e s and acqueducts, a s t h e p a r t y of t h e second p a r t , i t s s u c c e s s o r s o r a s s i g n s may d e s i r e ik ik and f o r t h a t purpose t o excavate a l l n e c e s s a r y d i t c h e s a c c r o s s any p o r t i o n of s a i d s e c t i o n , wherein t o l a y SUCK s u b t e r r a n e a n aqueducts, and a l s o f o r t h e purpose of r e p a i r i n g , changing o r removing, o r f o r any purpose connected w i t h t h e management and o p e r a t i o n o f t h e same. 1 1 * The deed goes on t o provide r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of t h e g r a n t e e B i l l i n g s Water Power Company: "* 9: ; b u t t h e p a r t y of t h e second p a r t i t s s u c c e s s o r s k o r a s s i g n s s h a l l never be l i a b l e t o pay any sum o r damages whatever f o r t h e r i g h t of way f o r such s u b t e r r a n ean aqueducts a c r o s s any p o r t i o n of such s e c t i o n f a r t h e r than t h e l i a b i l i t y t o r e p l a c e t h e e a r t h and r e s t o r e t h e improvements so d i s p l a c e d removed o r broken t o t h e c o n d i t i o n i n which t h e same was found when so removed II a s n e a r a s p r a c t i c a b l e , without unnecessary d e l a y . S h o r t l y a f t e r t h i s easement conveyance was g r a n t e d , a 14-inch water l i n e was i n s t a l l e d . The g r a n t of easement then passed through two o t h e r companies and i n a deed d a t e d February 1, 1915, t h e C i t y of B i l l i n g s a c q u i r e d t i t l e t o t h i s easement. I n 1944 t h e C i t y of B i l l i n g s purchased a 36 f o o t r i g h t of way easement f o r $192.25, a c r o s s t h e p r o p e r t y g r a n t e d i n t h e 1885 McAdow easement, t h e p r o p e r t y then being owned by d e f e n d a n t s ' predecessor in interest. The purpose of t h e easement was t o e n a b l e t h e C i t y t o c l e a r , t r e n c h , l a y , c o n s t r u c t , m a i n t a i n , r e p a i r and o p e r a t e a p i p e l i n e f o r a water system f o r t h e C i t y . The minutes of t h e October 24, 1944 c i t y c o u n c i l meeting a t which t h e above easement and payment were r a t i f i e d , makes no mention of t h e 1885 McAdow easement. I n 1974 t h e C i t y f i l e d t h i s d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a c t i o n seeking t o have i t s r i g h t s under t h e 1885 easement d e c l a r e d and thereby allow t h e C i t y t o e n t e r upon d e f e n d a n t s ' land t o l a y , c o n s t r u c t , excavate d i t c h e s f o r , i n s t a l l , maintain and r e p a i r a 36-inch water main along t h e l i n e and underground, w i t h o u t o b l i g a t i o n i n damages t o defendants o t h e r than t h e l i a b i l i t y t o r e p l a c e t h e e a r t h and r e s t o r e t h e improvements so d i s p l a c e d o r broken t o t h e c o n d i t i o n i n which t h e same was found when so removed as n e a r a s p r a c t i c a b l e , without unnecessary d e l a y . Following t r i a l , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t made t h e s e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law: "FINDINGS O FACT I. The C i t y of B i l l i n g s i s t h e F s u c c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t of B i l l i n g s Water Power Company and t h e owner of a l l r i g h t s under t h a t c e r t a i n i n d e n t u r e from McAdows t o B i l l i n g s Water Company d a t e d June 22, 1885, recorded November 17, 1885, i n Book ' A ' , page 580, r e c o r d s of Yellowstone County, Montana. A "11. Defendants' p r o p e r t y w a s encompassed w i t h i n t h e above-described McAdow i n d e n t u r e of which Defendants had c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e a t t h e time they purchased t h e i r property. "111. The terms of t h e s a i d McAdow i n d e n t u r e g r a n t B i l l i n g s Water Power Company a s g r a n t e e , i t s s u c c e s s o r s and a s s i g n s , c l e a r r i g h t t o b u i l d a l l such underground mains, pipes and aqueducts a s they may d e s i r e , provided only t h a t t h e g r a n t e e , i t s s u c c e s s o r s and a s s i g n s s h a l l r e p l a c e t h e e a r t h i n d i t c h e s and r e p l a c e and r e s t o r e any improvements on such land removed o r broken o r d i s p l a c e d o r damaged i n t h e c o u r s e of excavating any such d i t c h o r p l a c i n g any such aqueduct, and s u b j e c t t o o t h e r terms t h e r e i n s t a t e d . 11 "CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. The C i t y of B i l l i n g s has t h e l e g a l r i g h t a s s u c c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t under t h e abovedescribed FIcAdow i n d e n t u r e deed d a t e d 1885 t o p l a c e a t h i r t y - s i x i n c h water main i n t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e Defendants a t t h e l o c a t i o n a s d e s c r i b e d i n p l a i n t i f f ' s Complaint. I I Judgment was e n t e r e d by reason of t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s on J u l y 26, 1974. j udgment Defendants a p p e a l from t h e f i n a l . The s o l e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d f o r t h i s C o u r t ' s review i s whether t h e 1885 easement under which t h e C i t y c l a i m s was e x t i n g u i s h e d by abandonment (1) because of nonuser, a n d / o r (2) because t h e C i t y purchased a r i g h t of way and r e c e i v e d a deed of easement over t h e same p r o p e r t y i n 1944? Defendants admit t o c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e of t h e 1885 McAdow r i g h t s and t h e r e i s no q u a r r e l t h a t t h e r i g h t s i n q u e s t i o n were a c q u i r e d by a g r a n t and n o t by use. of t h e o r i g i n a l document c o n t r o l s . T h e r e f o r e , t h e language S e c t i o n 67-606, R.C.M. 1947. I n Wyrick v. Hoefle, 136 Mont. 172, 174, 346 P.2d 563, t h i s Court, q u o t i n g from Hochsprung v. Stevenson, 82 Mont. 222, 266 P. 406, s a i d : 11 1 The i n t e n t i o n of t h e g r a n t o r i n a deed i s t o b e g a t h e r e d from a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e i n s t r u m e n t , t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n a l l of i t s p r o v i s i o n s , and every p a r t must b e given e f f e c t i f reasonably p r a c t i c a b l e and c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i t s e v i d e n t purpose and o p e r a t i o n , "not, indeed, a s i t i s p r e s e n t e d i n p a r t i c u l a r s e n t e n c e s o r paragraphs, b u t according t o i t s e f f e c t when viewed *"' a s an e n t i r e t y . " ** Thus t h e C i t y was u t i l i z i n g o n l y t h a t p a r t l a n d reasonably n e c e s s a r y and c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e purposes f o r which t h e easement was g r a n t e d by a s k i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o d e c l a r e t h e C i t y had t h e r i g h t under t h e 1885 easement t o b u i l d t h e 36-inch l i n e . The landowners o f f e r e d no evidence t h a t such was unreasonable, b u t r e l y s o l e l y on t h e abandonment c o n t e n t i o n . The a c t s claimed t o c o n s t i t u t e t h e abandonment m u s t be of a c h a r a c t e r s o d e c i s i v e and c o n c l u s i v e a s t o i n d i c a t e a c l e a r i n t e n t t o abandon t h e easement. 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses 5103, p. 507. Defendants admit t h a t nonuse does n o t of i t s e l f produce a n abandonment no m a t t e r how long continued. P r o p e r t y , $504. Restatement of A s a g e n e r a l r u l e an easement a c q u i r e d by g r a n t o r r e s e r v a t i o n cannot b e l o s t by mere nonuser f o r any l e n g t h of time, no m a t t e r how g r e a t . 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses 5105, p. 509. I n t e n t of governmental body t o abandon must b e shown by o f f i c i a l a c t , and n o t mere i m p l i c a t i o n . and Sons, I n c . , D.C.Cal., 165 F.Supp. C i t y of Stockton v. Miles 554. A s a g e n e r a l r u l e t h e q u e s t i o n o f abandonment i s one of f a c t , n o t of law. Tamalpais Land & Water Co. v. Northwestern Pac. R. Co., 73 Cal.App.2d 917, 167 P.2d 825. A c a r e f u l review of t h e r e c o r d h e r e r e v e a l s no f a c t s t h a t would support abandonment by nonuse o r t o g e t h e r w i t h nonuse demonstrate any i n t e n t by t h e C i t y t o abandon t h i s easement. The second i s s u e r a i s e d by defendants f o r abandonment by t h e purchase of r i g h t of way by t h e City i n 1944 has l i t t l e pers u a s i o n a s t h e r e was no c a s e law c i t e d t o t h e Court t o s u p p o r t t h i s t y p e of abandonment. 67-611(3), R.C.M. The s t a t u t e r e l i e d on by d e f e n d a n t s , s e c t i o n 1947, provides t h a t an easement may b e e x t i n g u i s h e d : "BY t h e performance of any a c t upon e i t h e r tenement, by t h e owner of t h e s e r v i t u d e , o r w i t h h i s a s s e n t , which i s incompatable w i t h i t s n a t u r e o r e x e r c i s e J ; * *.I' When t h e C i t y purchased t h e easement i n 1944, i t d i d n o t r e c e i v e a n y t h i n g more than i t a l r e a d y owned. The 1944 a c t i v i t y by t h e C i t y was n o t an a c t incompatible w i t h t h e n a t u r e o r e x e r c i s e of t h e 1885 easement. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t cou IJe Concur: . \ '. . ' '6 .k!A</,-+ s . )-. i r # . y!-! J r, . . +.--*-- L ' - . Chief ~ u s < i & e -7 2 ' fid4 Justices. , I , ; , L . L.'," ( 7 ;, ; -,7 ;. . - ,
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.
