City of Billings v. OE Lee Company

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 : September 26, 1975

f11V - 3 - -
Filed :
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 con-
f 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 -
A

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.
"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 above-
described 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 De-
fendants 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. Defendants a p p e a l from t h e f i n a l
j udgment .
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. T h e r e f o r e , t h e language
of t h e o r i g i n a l document c o n t r o l s . 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 para-
graphs, 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. Restatement of
P r o p e r t y , $504. 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 . C i t y of Stockton v. Miles
and Sons, I n c . , D.C.Cal., 165 F.Supp. 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 per-
s 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. 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
67-611(3), R.C.M. 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:
.\

'.
. i r r,
'
'6
.k!A