Johnson v. Cella

PAULSEN, J. pro tem.

*

This is an action to quiet title to an easement over defendants’ property for a

%

inch pipeline, together with the incidental right to enter and maintain the flow of water through said pipeline.

Plaintiffs also claimed damages incurred as a result of defendants’ action in shutting off the water and thereby depriving plaintiffs of household water and for loss of a sale of their property.

The court entered judgment quieting title to the easement in plaintiffs and awarding damages in the sum of $500, and costs.

Defendants’ motion for a new trial was denied. They now appeal from the judgment and the order.

The property here involved consists of three tracts lying adjacent to one another. On the most southerly side lies the Cella tract, owned by the defendants, and over which the plaintiffs claim the easement. To the north, and contiguous to the Cella tract, lies the Benson tract; and to the north of the Benson tract, and contiguous to it, lies the Johnson tract owned by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs previously had owned the Cella tract but on April 2, 1946, sold it to one Patton. In 1947 Patton acquired the Johnson and Benson tracts also, then owning and controlling all three as a single tract. Plaintiffs purchased the Benson and Johnson tracts from Patton on September 2, 1947. Defendants purchased the Cella tract from Patton on April 13,1948. In March, 1949, Johnson sold the Benson tract to Benson,

[74]

At the time plaintiffs purchased the Johnson and Benson tracts from Patton they inspected the properties and found that the household water supply for the most northerly tract was supplied from a spring on the most southerly (now Cella) tract and that the pipeline was already installed. However, when the purchase of the northerly tract was made, nothing was said in the deed about the pipeline or water.

Throughout the trial and in the briefs filed on this appeal, appellants contended that plaintiffs never had an easement of any kind. Plaintiffs at all times insisted that one was created by implication under the provisions of section 1104 of the Civil Code. At the time of oral argument, appellants conceded the existence of the easement at the time Johnson purchased his tract from Patton. They argue, however, that they were bona fide purchasers of the Cella tract without knowledge or notice sufficient to put them on inquiry as to the existence of the easement.