Baker v. Pierce
| Decision Date | 30 October 1950 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | BAKER et al. v. PIERCE. Civ. 4117. |
C. Frederick Woolpert, Indio, for appellant.
Wallace P. Rouse, Indio, for respondents.
The plaintiffs and the defendant owned adjoining tracts of land in Indio, each of which was improved as a motel. The plaintiffs' predecessors had granted to the defendant an easement over a five-foot strip of their property for the purpose of installing and maintaining a water pipe line. The agreement therefor provided that such pipe line should be installed and maintained below the surface of the ground, and that the granting of the easement should not preclude the grantors from placing and maintaining buildings upon the land covered by the easement.
Nearly two years before this easement was granted a row of Palo Verde trees had been planted upon the strip covered by the easement, with Oleanders interspersed between the trees. These trees were watered and cared for by the plaintiffs after they acquired their property. Several years after he acquired the easement the defendant cut down eleven of these trees, being those nearest the front end of the properties, but did not remove the stumps. At that time these trees were about 25 feet high. He did not cut down the Oleanders, which were about 10 feet high.
The plaintiffs then brought this action for damages for the unlawful destruction of these frees, alleging that their land had been thereby damaged and lessened in value. At the trial, the defendant admitted that he had but the trees, saying that he had intended to alter his pipe line, which had already been installed, and that the trees would interfere with that work. There was ample evidence, however, as he admits in his brief, that he cut the trees for the purpose of making his motel sign more visible from the main highway. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs fixing their damages at $1650, and the defendant has appealed from the judgment.
The appellant contends that he had a right to remove these trees since they would increase the cost of his installation of a pipe line; that the court erroneously tried the case on the theory that he owed some duty to the respondents with respect to the manner in which he used the easement; that the only right the respondents retained in the land covered by the easement 'was the right to receive light and air across the easement,' citing Switzler v. Robert A. Klein & Co., 94 Cal.App. 410, 271 P. 367 and Zlozower v. Lindenbaum, 100 Cal.App. 766, 281 P. 102; and that the respondents had no right to plant trees and shrubs in that area. The trees were there when the easement was granted, and the grant reserved a right to the grantors to place or maintain 'buildings on said easement.' Possible inconvenience in installing a pipe line was contemplated by the agreement. There is ample evidence that a pipe line could easily be installed without destroying the trees. No authority need be cited for the well-known rule that the owner of a dominant tenement must use his casement and rights in such a way as to impose as slight a burden as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nursery v. Shiroma
...is "determined by the terms of the grant, or the nature of the enjoyment by which it was acquired"); Youngstown Steel Prods. Baker v. Pierce , 100 Cal. App. 2d 224, 226, 223 P.2d 286 (1950) ("No authority need be cited for the well-known rule that the owner of a dominant tenement must use h......
-
Locklin v. City of Lafayette
...use his easement and rights in such a way as to impose as slight a burden as possible on the servient tenement." (Baker v. Pierce (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 224, 226, 223 P.2d 286.) "Every easement includes ... the right to do such things as are necessary for the full enjoyment of the easement i......
-
Griffeth v. Utah Power & Light Company
...which are illustrative of the principle encompassed by the maxim — sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. See in accord Baker v. Pierce, 100 Cal.App. 2d 224, 223 P.2d 286. Exhibit 8, in evidence here, was furnished by defendant in response to plaintiffs' interrogatories and shows that through......
-
Center Drive-In Theatre, Inc. v. City of Derby
...the servient estate as the nature of the easement and the purpose will permit.' 2 Thompson, op. cit. § 427, p. 699; Baker v. Pierce, 100 Cal.App.2d 224, 226, 223 P.2d 286; Doan v. Allgood, 310 Ill. 381, 384, 141 N.E. 779. In this case, the language of the instrument is broad in scope. The c......