# North Union Canal Company v. Newell

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

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9557948

## 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:** Dissent by Tuckett
- **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/9557948

## 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

TUCKETT, Justice
(dissenting):
The record is without dispute that the plaintiff was the owner of an easement running along its canal to permit the plaintiff to clean and to make necessary repairs to the canal. The plaintiff having acquired an easement, it makes no' difference whether the acquisition of the easement was by grant or user, the plaintiff is entitled to have the easement protected from interference by the defendants or others. The powers of the court should not be used to protect the defendants’ interference with an established property right. If the interference is maintained for the requisite period of time, the effect will be to create the new right in the defendants and extinguish the plaintiff’s right of way.
I would remand with directions to the court below to determine the essential width of the easement to permit the plaintiff to carry on its maintenance and repair work and. to identify property in the decree so as to avoid future disputes.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9557948. Public record. Not legal advice.