Carson v. Great Lakes Pipe Line Co.

• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Citation: Carson v. Great Lakes Pipe Line Co., 238 Iowa 50, 25 N.W.2d 855 (Iowa 1947)
• Decision Date: 11 February 1947
• Docket Number: 46939.
• Parties: CARSON et al. v. GREAT LAKES PIPE LINE CO.

25 N.W.2d 855

238 Iowa 50

CARSON et al. v. GREAT LAKES PIPE LINE CO.

No. 46939.

Supreme Court of Iowa

February 11, 1947

Stipp Perry, Bannister, Carpenter & Ahlers, of Des Moines, for appellant.

Clifford Powell, of Red Oak, for appellees.

HAYS Justice.

M. S. Ling in 1931 granted Great Lakes Pipe Line Company, appellant, an easement over his land, for construction of a pipe line. Two instruments were executed--a Right of Way Agreement and a Receipt and Release, and which, by their terms, constitute one agreement. Appellant constructed at different times, two pipe lines, one a four inch, and one a six inch line. In 1943 appellant removed the four inch line and it is for compensation for its removal, that appellees brought this action. The sole question before us concerns the interpretation of the said written agreements.

The case was presented to the lower court on a stipulation of facts and the agreements themselves. Appellees have not asked for a reformation of the agreements but claim they are ambiguous and should be construed to provide the same compensation upon removel of a line as was paid for the laying of a line and the trial court so held. Appellant states that on a removal, only physical damages to the premises are contemplated by the agreements.

The Right of Way Agreement provides: 'For and in consideration of * * * ($1.00) * * *, I, Milo S. Ling * * * do hereby grant to Great Lakes Pipe Line Company, * * *, the right to lay maintain, operate, re-lay and remove at any time a straight pipe line or pipe lines * * *, with right of ingress and egress to and from the same * * *. All damages to crops surfaces, fences, and premises for and because of the laying of each line of pipe shall be paid for as soon as said line or lines are completed. In addition to this there shall be paid on the laying of the first line of pipe an additional compensation at the rate of fifty cents (50¢) per rod for each rod or fraction thereof of land on these premises across which said line is laid. * * *. If the amount of damages to fences, crops and premises, which may be suffered by reason of laying, maintaining, operating, altering or removing said pipe lines cannot be mutually agreed upon, then same shall be ascertained and determined by three disinterested persons, * * *. A certain instrument of this date acknowledging receipt of damage in connection with this right of way is a part of this agreement and is the basis for damages should additional lines be laid. * * *'

The Receipt and Release agreement provides: 'Received * * * ($1,135.00) * * * and in consideration of said sum so paid to Milo Ling hereby remi e, release * * * said Great Lakes Pipe Line Company, * * * from any and all * * * claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage or loss which heretofore has been or which hereafter may be sustained by him in consequence of--during laying of above line * * *. All property damage both real or personal by reason of constructing one four or six inch gasoline line * * *. This instrument is pursuant to * * * Right of Way Agreement * * * and forms a part of and is in full force as to such agreement concerning any additional lines, which shall be paid for as to damages in accordance with the Right of Way agreement and this instrument. * * *'

The stipulation of facts states that there was paid at the time of the construction of the pipe line the sum of $165 (as provided in Right of Way Agreement) and $1,135 (as provided in Receipt and Release). M. S. Ling, grantor of easement, is deceased and appellees are trustees of his estate. The same amounts were paid when the second line (six inch) was constructed. In 1943 appellant entered upon the premises, cut a trench and took out and removed the four inch pipe and backfilled the same. The crop damages have been adjusted with the tenant, and appellant admits $65 is due appellees for their...