# North Union Canal Company v. Newell

> Utah Supreme Court · May 11, 1976 · 550 P.2d 178

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9557947

## Case

- **Full name:** NORTH UNION CANAL COMPANY, a Utah Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Daniel E. NEWELL and Ruth I. Newell, Defendants and Respondents
- **Court:** Utah Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 11, 1976
- **Citations:** 550 P.2d 178; 1976 Utah LEXIS 832
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Henriod
- **Judges:** Crockett, Henriod, Tuckett, Maughan
- **Cited by:** 20 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/9557947

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 in…
- 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 deg…
- 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 degr…
- 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…
- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9557947. Public record. Not legal advice.