Carson v. Great Lakes Pipe Line Co.
Decision Date | 11 February 1947 |
Docket Number | 46939. |
Citation | 25 N.W.2d 855,238 Iowa 50 |
Parties | CARSON et al. v. GREAT LAKES PIPE LINE CO. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Stipp Perry, Bannister, Carpenter & Ahlers, of Des Moines, for appellant.
Clifford Powell, of Red Oak, for appellees.
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: * * *. * * *'
The Receipt and Release agreement provides: * * *'
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial