# Big Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Co. v. Moyle

> Utah Supreme Court · November 7, 1946 · 109 Utah 213

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3988295

## Case

- **Full name:** BIG COTTONWOOD TANNER DITCH CO. v. MOYLE Et Al.
- **Court:** Utah Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 7, 1946
- **Citations:** 109 Utah 213; 174 P.2d 148; 172 A.L.R. 175; 1946 Utah LEXIS 136
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pratt
- **Judges:** Larson, Wolfe, Pratt, Wade, McDonough
- **Cited by:** 49 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3988295

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the standard for establishing the dimensions of a prescriptive easement is that which is of “reasonable necessity” to permit the limited use acquired as a prescriptive right
- holding that the burdens that the servient owner may enjoin are those that are “over and above those embraced within the framework of the easement itself’
- stating that, in easement cases, reasonable use “is a question of fact to be decided after considering” the circumstances of the case
- noting that while the “substance of the easement is shown by the usage,” “the form [of the easement] . . . is a question of reasonable necessity”

## Opinion text

PRATT, Justice.
I concur. However, I am treating the discussion in the prevailing opinion pertaining to the question whether or not we should repudiate the common law theory of grant as the basis for the prescriptive right to an easement, as the personal views of the author of that opinion. Upon the merits of that question I do not care, at this time, to make any comment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3988295. Public record. Not legal advice.