Buckeye Pipe Line Company v. Keating, 11565.
| Decision Date | 13 March 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 11565.,11565. |
| Citation | 229 F.2d 795 |
| Parties | BUCKEYE PIPE LINE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward M. KEATING and Mercantile National Bank of Hammond, as Trustee, Defendants-Appellants, and The Town of Highland, Lake County, Indiana, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Owen W. Crumpacker, Theodore M. Gemberling, Lowell E. Enslen, Hammond, Ind., for the defendant-appellants. Crumpacker & Schroer, Hammond, Ind., of counsel.
Charles M. Wells, Indianapolis, Ind., Joseph E. Tinkham, Hammond, Ind., Willard B. Van Horne, Jr., Raymond B. Young, East Chicago, Ind., for appellee, Travis & Tinkham, Hammond, Ind., Barnes, Hickam, Pantzer & Boyd, Indianapolis, Ind., of counsel.
Before DUFFY, Chief Judge, FINNEGAN and SWAIM, Circuit Judges.
This case involves a type of conflict that is often occurring throughout the United States. A pipe line, used for transporting crude oil, has been located and operated pursuant to an easement since 1888. In 1952 urban growth led to the subdivision of the land through which the pipe ran and the construction of houses, streets and all the requirements of a city residential area. Four of the streets of the subdivision cross the pipe line, and the foundation of the pavement of at least one of these would extend about two inches below the top of the pipe. The plaintiff claims that unless the pipe is lowered and incased it will be damaged by the impact of traffic over these streets and by increased corrosion caused by the paving materials. Each party wants the other to pay for lowering and incasing the pipe which the trial court found would cost $2,900.00.
In communities such as the one here involved conflicts due to changing land use often occur, and ordinarily the parties recognize the rights of all concerned and an agreement is reached. But in this case the owner of the pipe line, on the one hand, and the owners of the land and the city and its officials, on the other, refuse to make any concessions or come to any agreement. In the meantime, the pipe line is in danger of being damaged and the residents of the subdivision and others are forced to walk and drive through the mud because the streets have not been paved for twenty feet on each side of the pipe.
The easement, which the plaintiff claims is being interfered with, was granted in 1888:
In the same year an oil pipe line was constructed about one foot below the surface of the land described in the above grant. The present owners of the land and of the pipe line, who are parties in this litigation, are the successors to the parties of the original grant of the easement.
In 1910 the Town of Highland, Indiana, was incorporated south of the land through which the above easement was granted, and in 1952 that land was purchased by defendant Keating and subdivided to provide a residential area for Highland. This litigation arises because Buckeye Pipe Line Company claims that the construction and use of streets over its pipe line will result in damage unless the pipe line is lowered and incased. Both parties claim that their interest in the land is superior and that the other party must pay for lowering and incasing the pipe line. The appellants also argue that the streets in question will not injure the pipe.
The plaintiff's pipe line runs north and south through the subdivision, Highland Terrace, and four of the new east-west streets in the subdivision cross the pipe. Each of these four streets has been graded and paved to within ten feet of each side of the pipe. The parties apparently are determined to leave the subdivision in this condition until the courts have settled their dispute.
Buckeye Pipe Line Company brought this suit against Edward M. Keating, who subdivided the land, Mercantile National Bank of Hammond, Indiana, the trustee of the subdivision, and the Town of Highland and its officials. Plaintiff prayed that its title in the easement be quieted against all the defendants, that the defendants be permanently enjoined from building any structure that would interfere with the pipe or its accessibility for maintenance purposes, and that $15,000.00 damages be awarded. The trial court found no evidence of actual damage to the pipe line, but did find that the four streets, if completed as planned, and the traffic thereon would be likely to injure the pipe at its present depth. The court held that Buckeye's easement was superior to any later acquired interest, and that the defendants would have to adapt their use of the land to the rights of the Pipe Line Company. The court's decree awarded no monetary damages but enjoined the defendants from paving the streets over the pipe line and required them to take whatever steps were necessary to prevent traffic from crossing over the pipe. The decree also provided, however, that the injunction would be dissolved when the pipe was incased and lowered or when the defendants paid $2,900.00 to cover the cost of incasing and lowering.
The appellants' principal argument is that the injunction was improper because there was no evidence that paving and using the streets would injure the pipe, and therefore the court was actually giving the plaintiff a fee simple interest in the land through which the easement ran. Not only was there sufficient evidence to substantiate the trial court's finding, but the record as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line v. Madison Cty.
...before the pipelines were built, the Kansas highway case should not apply. The same distinction would apply to Buckeye Pipe Line Co. v. Keating, 229 F.2d 795, 798 (7th Cir.1956), where the Seventh Circuit held that a town could not build new streets over pipelines that had been built much T......
-
Schilling v. Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources
...in original). It is undisputed that a prescriptive easement is an interest in real property. See id.; see also Buckeye Pipe Line Co. v. Keating, 229 F.2d 795, 798 (7th Cir.1956). Therefore, "when the United States has an interest in ... disputed property, the waiver of sovereign immunity mu......
-
National City v. California Water & Tel. Co.
...563, 79 L.Ed. 1090; Youngstown Steel, etc., Co. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 38 Cal.2d 407, 410, 240 P.2d 977; Buckeye Pipe Line Company v. Keating, 7 Cir., 229 F.2d 795); and that the implied obligation of the holder of a franchise to use a city's streets, to bear the expense of a change......
-
Sussex Rural Elec. Co-op. v. Wantage Tp.
...or substantially impairs the delivery of utility services can result in a compensable taking. See, e.g., Buckeye Pipe Line Co. v. Keating, 229 F.2d 795, 798 (7th Cir.1956), cert. den., 352 U.S. 830, 77 S.Ct. 44, 1 L.Ed.2d 51 (1956) ("[T]he property of the owner of an easement is taken from ......
-
Real Property Interests Subject to Oil and Gas Interests
...pipeline company entitled to reimbursement for expenditures occasioned by highway construction.) See also Buckeye Pipeline Co. v. Keating, 229 F.2d 795, 798-99 (7th Cir. 1956), cert. denied 352 U.S. 830, 77 S. Ct. 44, 1 L. Ed. 2d 51 (1957) (enjoining construction of a street over a pipeline......
-
Real Property Interests Subject to Oil and Gas Interests: Practical Suggestions for Resolving Potential Legal Conflicts Between Purchasers or Developers of Real Property and the Owners of Oil and Gas Interests to Which the Property Is Subject
...pipeline company entitled to reimbursement for expenditures occasioned by highway construction.) See also Buckeye Pipeline Co. v. Keating, 229 F.2d 795, 798-99 (7th Cir. 1956), cert. denied 352 U.S. 830, 77 S. Ct. 44, 1 L. Ed. 2d 51 (1957) (enjoining construction of a street over a pipeline......