Galletly v. Bockius

California Court of Appeal Oct 10, 1905 No. No. 48.Published

Before: Harrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an owner of a servient tenement may grant multiple easements over the same land, provided the subsequent easements do not interfere with the enjoyment of existing ones. Consequently, the trial court erred in finding the defendant had no interest in the land after the defendant reserved an easement for himself while conveying the fee to a third party.

Issues

Whether an owner of a servient tenement may subject their land to additional easements in favor of different tracts of land.
Whether the trial court's finding that the plaintiff was the owner in fee of the disputed land was supported by the evidence.

Disposition. reversed

Synopsis

Action to Quiet Title—Easement—Right of Wat—Finding against Evidence.—In an action to quiet title, where the evidence shows that plaintiff has only an easement of a right of way over the premises described, and that defendant is entitled to an easement therein of the same character, subject to plaintiff’s enjoyment thereof, a finding that plaintiff owns the land and that defendant has no interest therein is against the evidence.

Id.—Wat Made Appurtenant to Different Lands.—Where defendant was the original owner of the land, subject to plaintiff’s right of way, and also owned lands bounded by it, he had the right to pass over the way as owner of the fee, subject only to plaintiff’s enjoyment thereof; and upon selling such land he had the right to reserve the way as an appurtenance to Ms contiguous tract bounded thereon, subject only to non-interference with plaintiff’s enjoyment of the way.

Id.—Power of Owner to Create Basements.—WMle the owner of the dominant tenement cannot increase the burden of the servient tenement against the will of the owner thereof, the owner of the latter is by virtue of Ms jus disponendi not limited in the number or character of the easements to wMch he may make Ms land subject. He may subject it to the easement of a right of way in favor of or as appurtenant to different tracts of land, whether owned by the same person or by different persons.

HARRISON, P. J.

Action to quiet title. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed.

The land described in the complaint is the southerly twenty feet of a tract of about forty acres bordering upon the county road from Watsonville to San Jose, and extending easterly therefrom about seventeen hundred feet, and which, for convenience of reference, is styled herein as tract “A.” The plaintiff is the owner of a tract of land, herein called tract “B,” contiguous thereto and lying easterly therefrom, and the defendant is the owner of a tract, called herein tract “C,” lying southerly from the above tracts and contiguous to each of them. All of the land was at one time owned by John S. Barrett, who, in September, 1884, conveyed to Ascencio Mendia tracts “A” and “B,” and in August, 1887, conveyed tract “C” to the defendant. September 30, 1886, Mendia conveyed tract “A” to Francisco Mora with the following reservation in the deed of conveyance: “The party of the first part reserves the right of way 20 feet wide along the boundary-line of the within mentioned tract and lands of J. S. Barrett; said right of way is to commence at the county road and along the line of lands of Barrett until it

[726]

reaches the lands oí A. Mendia.” December 1, 1891, Mendia executed to Mora another conveyance of tract “A,” “to perfect and correct the description” in his former deed, and inserted therein the following: “Said Ascencio Mendia reserves the right of way 20 feet wide along the easterly boundary of the above-described tract and lands of G. M. Bockius; said right of way is to commence at the county road and continue along the line of lands of said Bockius until it reaches the land of A. Mendia.” December 9, 1891, Mora executed to the defendant a conveyance of tract “A,” “save and except from the above-described tract a right of way 20 feet wide along the eastern boundary thereof reserved by A. Mendia.” August 29, 1892, Mendia executed to the plaintiff a conveyance of a tract of land whose description included tracts “A” and “B,” excepting therefrom, however, the premises conveyed to Mora by his deed of December 1, 1891. With the title to the land in this condition the defendant herein, in June, 1893, commenced an action in the superior court for Santa Cruz County against the plaintiff herein to quiet his title to tract “A,” in which judgment was entered March 28, 1895, declaring him to be the owner in fee simple of said tract “A,” and that the plaintiff herein is the owner of a right of way in the southerly twenty feet of said tract as appurtenant to tract “B,” and that he has no other right or interest in tract “A” than said right of way. Subsequent to the entry of this judgment,—viz., April 11, 1895,—the defendant herein conveyed to one Martinelli tract “A,” describing the same as the same land conveyed to him by Mora by the aforesaid deed of December 9, 1891, and containing the following reservation: “The said Godfrey M. Bockius hereby reserves for himself, his heirs and assigns, the use of the right of way mentioned in aforesaid deed as an appurtenance to his adjoining premises.” The present action was commenced April 11, 1900. At the trial thereof the court found that at the commencement of the action the plaintiff' was the owner of and entitled to the possession of the land described in his complaint, and that the defendant had no estate, title, or interest therein, or in any easement or right of way in or over same, and rendered judgment accordingly.

Galletly v. Bockius

AI Brief

Synopsis

HARRISON, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief