Frantz v. Collins
| Decision Date | 29 March 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 35949,35949 |
| Citation | 21 Ill.2d 446,173 N.E.2d 437 |
| Parties | Roy FRANTZ et al., Appellees, v. Raymond COLLINS et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
James M. Jones and Robert K. Lock, Chicago, for appellants.
Chester J. Stasack, Chicago, for appellees.
This is an injunction action instituted in the circuit court of Cook County by Roy Frantz and Florence L. Frantz, his wife, to enjoin their next-door neighbors, Raymond Collins and Eleanor Collins, from interfering with plaintiffs' alleged right to pipe water to their residence from a well located on defendants' property. From a decree awarding the injunction, defendants have prosecuted an appeal directly to this court since a freehold is involved. Liberty National Bank of Chicago v. Lux, 378 Ill. 329, 38 N.E.2d 6.
The properties now belonging to the respective parties originally constituted a single tract owned by Charles M. Arnold, a building contractor. In June, 1955, Arnold discussed plans for building residences with both the plaintiffs and defendants and, after viewing several possible locations and deciding upon the type of home desired, the latter entered into an agreement with Arnold for the construction of a residence upon the easterly one-half of the Arnold tract. On October 21, 1955, this portion, was conveyed to the defendants, and shortly thereafter construction of the Frantz residence was commenced upon the remaining portion of the Arnold tract, which was conveyed to plaintiffs about February 1, 1956. Neither deed made any mention of easements nor of a common water supply.
Nevertheless it appears that in September, 1955, prior to the date of either conveyance, a water well was drilled by Arnold upon the premises about equidistant from its easterly and westerly property lines and was equipped with both a submersive pump located in the well casing and a 'T' plug, about two or three inches in length, which was situated some two feet below the surface of the ground and acted as a connection for water pipes leading from the well. One arm of the 'T' plug was attached to the pipes serving the Collins residence, and the other arm was temporarily capped until the completion of the Frantz home in January, 1956, after which it was connected to the plaintiffs' water system. The submersive pump was electrically operated on a 220-volt circuit initially connected only with the Collins property but later designed in such a manner that the electricity was furnished equally from each of the two residences. With the exception of a metal vent pipe extending over the casing, neither the well nor its equipment was visible above the surface of the ground.
It also appears that the Frantz and Collins families had been friends for many years and that not only had the defendants interested plaintiffs in building upon this particular location, but the parties had lived together for some two months prior to the completion of the plaintiffs' home. Thereafter the parties enjoyed a quite friendly relationship, both socially and as neighbors, and continued to share the common water supply until November, 1958, at which time plaintiffs were informed by defendants that the well was located upon and belonged solely to the Collins property. Shortly thereafter defendants disconnected Frantz's water pipe and capped the arm of the 'T' plug to which it had formerly been attached. The present litigation followed.
At the trial of this cause, Arnold testified that he divided his tract into two parcels for the purpose of constructing separate residences thereon having a single well which he intended to locate upon the common property line, and that both Frantz and Collins were well aware of this arrangement prior to their purchases, but that a survey conducted some years later revealed the well had in fact been mistakenly drilled entirely upon defendants' premises. He also explained that a 'T' plug, such as was used in the instant case, is designed to supply water to two separate residences whereas an 'L' plug is used when only one home is to be connected.
The plaintiff, Roy Frantz, stated that city water is not available in their locality but that both he and the defendants understood at the time of their conveyances that they were to share a common well, thus reducing the cost of their respective properties. The defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Light v. Steward
...of the parties to a conveyance by which one parcel is separated from another to grant or reserve an easement. (See Frantz v. Collins (1961), 21 Ill.2d 446, 173 N.E.2d 437.) Essential elements which must exist to establish an easement by implication are: (1) there must be unity of ownership ......
-
Mid-City Nat. Bank v. C.A. Hemphill & Associates
...case, it is manifest from the way the property was arranged that the parties intended the driveway to be permanent. (Frantz v. Collins (1961), 21 Ill.2d 446, 173 N.E.2d 437.) Plaintiff notes that none of the three initial succeeding grantees of title to Lot 3 after the initial severance had......
-
Luthy v. Keehner
...the intent must exist at the time of the conveyance (Van Patten v. Loof (1932), 349 Ill. 483, 182 N.E. 628; see Frantz v. Collins (1961), 21 Ill.2d 446, 173 N.E.2d 437). To support their position that neither they nor their grantee, Ferd Luthy Jr., intended that an easement exist across the......
-
Smith v. Heissinger, 4-00-0571.
...water supply (Hallock v. Wear, 194 Ill.App.3d 894, 904-07, 141 Ill. Dec. 525, 551 N.E.2d 712, 718-20 (1990); Frantz v. Collins, 21 Ill.2d 446, 449-51, 173 N.E.2d 437, 439-40 (1961)) and to a catch basin providing access to the sewer system (Swieton v. Landoch, 106 Ill.App.3d 292, 298-300, 6......