Boland v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, 2-91-012-CV
| Decision Date | 09 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-91-012-CV,2-91-012-CV |
| Citation | 816 S.W.2d 843 |
| Parties | R.J. BOLAND and Charlotte Boland, Appellants, v. NATURAL GAS PIPELINE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Woodruff, Fostel, Wren & Simpson, John H. Fostel and Mason L. Woodruff, Decatur, for appellants.
Wm. A. Nobles, Decatur, for appellee.
Before WEAVER, C.J., and MEYERS and DAY, JJ.
In this appeal R.J. and Charlotte Boland, appellants, request the court to determine the rights of the parties under an easement grant executed on December 8, 1959, by the Bolands' predecessor in title. In April of 1990, Natural Gas Pipeline Co., appellee, attempted to lay its fourth pipeline in reliance on the 1959 grant. The Bolands refused to allow the Pipeline Co. permission to enter to lay the pipeline. The trial court held the Pipeline Co. was entitled to lay its pipeline at the location of its choosing on the land. Accordingly, the trial court issued a permanent injunction enjoining the Bolands from interfering with the activities of the Pipeline Co. upon the premises.
We affirm.
In 1959, Anna Lee Daniel executed a pipeline easement to Pipeline Co. on her tract of land in Wise County, in order to allow them to connect a gas well which had been drilled upon her land. The easement granted is to "construct thereon and to reconstruct, operate, maintain, repair, alter, replace, move and remove an initial pipeline, and any additional pipeline described by Grantee, for the transportation of gas, oil, or other substances transportable by pipeline, at route or routes selected by Grantee." [Emphasis added.] The only description of the property contained in this instrument was a metes and bounds description of the entire eighty-acre tract. Since the 1959 grant, Pipeline Co. has laid three pipelines across three different areas of the tract. In the spring of 1990, Pipeline Co. wanted to re-enter the tract to lay a fourth pipeline in a new location in reliance on the 1959 grant. The Bolands refused to allow Pipeline Co. on the land to lay the pipe, and this litigation resulted.
Pipeline Co. filed for injunctive relief and for monetary damages. A temporary restraining order was issued by the trial court against the Bolands. The Bolands then filed their original answer and counterclaim, requesting injunctive relief, removal of the 1964 and 1987 pipelines, and monetary damages. A temporary restraining order was then issued against Pipeline Co. The trial court found at a final hearing that the said 1959 instrument creates a multiple line perpetual right-of-way easement in favor of grantee; that under the terms of the instrument grantee is entitled to lay its present proposed pipeline at the location of its choosing upon the eighty-acre subject premises; and that, accordingly, a permanent injunction should be granted.
In a single point of error the Bolands assert that the trial court erred as a matter of law in holding that Pipeline Co. was entitled to lay its fourth pipeline at the location of its choosing and in its construction of the easement.
No findings of fact or conclusions of law have been filed with this court. Although the judgment contains findings of fact, these cannot be considered. TEX.R.CIV.P. 299a.
In construing an easement, rules regarding the interpretation of deeds and other written instruments apply. Knox v. Pioneer Natural Gas Co., 321 S.W.2d 596, 602 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Thus, basic rules of contract apply to the construction of an easement.
Texas courts have held the failure to spell out all the terms in an easement with respect to the construction of additional pipelines does not render ambiguous or unenforceable the rights granted. Strauch v. Coastal States Crude Gathering Co., 424 S.W.2d 677, 681 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1968, writ dism'd). Thus, if there is no ambiguity in an instrument, its construction is a question of law for the court. Westwind Exploration v. Homestate Sav. Ass'n, 696 S.W.2d 378, 381 (Tex.1985).
In their point of error, the Bolands recognize...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bennett v. Tarrant County Water Control and Imp. Dist. No. One
...apply to the construction of easements. Jones v. Fuller, 856 S.W.2d 597, 602 (Tex.App.--Waco 1993, writ denied); Boland v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., 816 S.W.2d 843, 844 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1991, no writ). In construing a deed, the primary duty of a court is to ascertain the intent of the ......
-
Lindemann Props., Ltd. v. Campbell
...now seeks—to reconstruct, replace, alter, enlarge, move, and change the size of the radio-transmission tower. Cf. Boland v. Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am., 816 S.W.2d 843, 844 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, no writ) (construing easement granted rights to "construct thereon and to reconstruct, op......
-
In re Interest of A.E.J.
...n.7 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, writ denied) (fact findings contained in judgment may not be considered on appeal); Boland v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., 816 S.W.2d 843, 844 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, no writ) (same). More recently, however, we have said that "[b]ecause the record does not co......
-
Atmos Energy Corp. v. Paul
...intentions of the parties as expressed in the instrument. See Coker v. Coker , 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983) ; Boland v. Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. , 816 S.W.2d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, no writ). The rules of contract construction and interpretation apply to the interpretati......
-
CHAPTER 14 DUE DILIGENCE FOR THE PURCHASE OF PIPELINE SYSTEMS
...right to lay additional lines exists, courts will look to the express language of the easement.9 In Boland v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., 816 S.W.2d 843 (Tex.App. 1991), a grantee pipeline company filed for injunctive relief after a grantor landowner refused to allow the pipeline company to l......