Chase v. Cram

• Decision Date: 15 June 1916
• Docket Number: No. 324.,324.
• Citation: 97 A. 802
• Parties: CHASE v. CRAM.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

97 A. 802

CHASE

v. CRAM.

No. 324.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 15, 1916.

Petition by respondent that the decree heretofore ordered by the Supreme Court (97 Atl. 481) to be entered in the superior court be modified. Petition denied.

See, also, 94 Atl. 865; 95 Atl. 415.

Waterman & Greenlaw, of Providence, for complainant. Nathan W. Littlefield, of Providence, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The respondent in the above-entitled case prays that the decree heretofore ordered by this court to be entered in the superior court be modified as follows:

"In the second paragraph thereof, after the words 'the respondent,' in the third line of said paragraph, add the words 'her heirs and assigns'; and in the same paragraph, after the words 'enabling her,' in the fourth line thereof, add the words 'her heirs and assigns'; and in the same paragraph, in the sixth line thereof, after the words 'water of the spring as she,' add the words 'or they'; and in the third paragraph of said decree, in the twelfth line thereof, after the words 'or in any manner whatsoever other than as she,' add the words 'or her heirs or assigns may see fit.' And your petitioner says that it is necessary that these corrections should be made in order to show clearly that the easement of the respondent in the spring mentioned in said decree is inheritable and assignable, as heretofore found by this court in the decision in the case of Rachael H. Cram v. Paul Chase, 35 R. I. 98, 85 Atl. 642, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 824. And she prays that an order may be entered by this court directing said amendments to be made before said decree shall be entered in the superior court for the county of Newport."

While the amendments proposed might well have been made when the decree was before this court, we are of the opinion that they are not necessary for the protection of the respondent, her heirs and assigns. In Rachael H. Cram v. Paul Chase, 35 R. I. 98, at page 115, 85 Atl. 642, at page 648 (43 L. R. A. [N. s.] 824), this court said:

"The sixth contention above set forth, that the court below erred in finding that the grant to the complainant of the 'privilege to take water from the spring' conferred a right which would pass to the grantee's heirs and assigns, is without merit, in view of the plain language of the deed. The grant is to 'Rachael H. Chase, her heirs and assigns, forever'; * * * and the habendum is 'to the said Rachael H. Chase and her heirs and assigns, to their own use and behoof forever.' The defendant's counsel is plainly in error when he urges that the words 'heirs and assigns' are not 'connected with the giving of the water right to the complainant.' The deed is plain upon its face, and there is...