Frenning v. Dow, 87-120-A
Decision Date | 22 July 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 87-120-A,87-120-A |
Citation | 544 A.2d 145 |
Parties | Blanche Borden FRENNING et al. v. Clarence DOW et al. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This case comes before us on appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment entered in the Superior Court extinguishing an easement that had been in existence since 1838 on the ground of excessive use. We vacate the judgment. The facts in the case insofar as pertinent to this appeal are as follows.
The defendants' predecessor in title (Gray) granted to plaintiffs' predecessor (Shaw) an easement to cross defendants' land "with teams loaded or not, caragies [sic] of any kind, Stock, on Horse back, or on foot, doing as little damage as may be * * * to him his heirs & assigns forever." At the time of the granting of the easement the dominant tenement consisted of 102 acres of land in the town of Little Compton. Since that time, plaintiffs' predecessor and plaintiffs have acquired contiguous parcels of land so that the total holdings of plaintiffs at the time of trial consisted of 257 acres.
The trial justice made the following additional findings of fact:
As a result of these findings, the trial justice concluded that the easement had been extinguished or forfeited.
The plaintiffs argue in support of their appeal that the additional intensity of use was insufficient to justify a forfeiture or extinguishment of the easement. Generally courts have not favored extinguishing an easement unless injunctive relief would be ineffective to relieve the servient tenement. The cases in support of this proposition are legion and are set forth in an annotation in 16 A.L.R. 2d 609 (1951). The principal case upon which this annotation is based is Penn Bowling Recreation Centers, Inc. v. Hot Shoppes, Inc., 179 F. 2d 64 (D.C. Cir. 1949), in which the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit set aside a summary judgment extinguishing an easement in circumstances wherein a building had been constructed partly on the dominant parcel and partly upon contiguous land that was not entitled to be benefited by the easement. Moreover the building in question built in part upon land not entitled to the easement consisted of a large bowling alley and restaurant to which the plaintiff had brought fuel oil, food, equipment, and supplies over the right of way, and the plaintiff also used the same right of way to remove trash, garbage, and other material. The court observed:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kilmartin v. Barbuto
... ... overburdening it. Frenning v. Dow , 544 A.2d 145, 146 ... (R.I. 1988) (citing Penn Bowling Recreation Centers, Inc ... ...
-
Kilmartin v. Barbuto
...the public can make use of a public easement to the fullest extent contemplated by the grantor, without overburdening it. Frenning v. Dow, 544 A.2d 145, 146 (R.I. 1988) (citing Penn Bowling Recreation Centers, Inc. v. Hot Shoppes, Inc., 179 F.2d 64, 66 (D.C. Cir. 1949)), finds that "[t]he r......
-
Carpenter v. Hanslin
...that to which he or she is entitled, and impose upon the servient estate only the burden that was originally contemplated. Frenning v. Dow, 544 A.2d 145 (R.I.1988). And where a structure is reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of the right granted under a right-of-way, the courts have so c......
-
State v. Powers
...convincing evidence. Such findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are shown to be clearly erroneous. Frenning v. Dow, 544 A.2d 145, 146 (R.I.1988). Our review of the record fails to reveal any indication of a deliberate withholding of the fact that these statements were......