Opinion

North Union Canal Company v. Newell

  • 550 P.2d 178
  • 1976 Utah LEXIS 832
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Filed
May 11, 1976
Status
Published
Author
Henriod
On the bench
Crockett, Henriod, Tuckett, Maughan
Cited by
20 cases

concluding that a landowner does not need to obtain permission from the easement holder for installing certain improvements on land subject to an easement because the landowner may “use their property in any manner they please so long as they do not unreasonably restrict or interfere with the proper use of the plaintiff’s easement”

How later courts described this case

  • concluding that a landowner does not need to obtain permission from the easement holder for installing certain improvements on land subject to an easement because the landowner may “use their property in any manner they please so long as they do not unreasonably restrict or interfere with the proper use of the plaintiff’s easement”
  • explaining that .the easement holder is entitled only to “have the right to use and enjoy his easement to the fullest extent possible not inconsistent with” the landowner’s rights while the landowner is entitled to “have the use and enjoyment of his property to the highest degree possible,” while accounting for the easement
  • explaining that the land owner over which a canal easement passed did not need to obtain permission from the canal easement holder before placing a fence across the property as long as the fence did not “unreasonably restrict or interfere with the proper use of the plaintiff’s easement”
  • noting that an easement holder is entitled to “have the right to use and enjoy his easement to the fullest extent possible not inconsistent with the rights of the fee owner”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

HENRIOD, Chief Justice

(concurring in the result):

I concur with the principles and result of the main opinion, but believe the remand should be a simple interdiction that the servient estate owner be required to furnish to the dominant estate owner reasonable access for maintenance of the canal at all reasonable times necessary to its maintenance, without our detailing what and how the judgment should read. The above generalization should suffice, but if there is to be any specificity as to1 how it should be supplemented, it should be accomplished by taking evidence, for which purpose we do not have the facilities.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.