Gorman v. Jones
Decision Date | 07 November 1962 |
Citation | 375 P.2d 821,232 Or. 416 |
Parties | J. W. GORMAN, also known as Jack Gorman, and Caryl M. Gorman, husband and wife, Respondents and Cross-Appellants, v. Edward F. JONES and Agnes I. Jones, husband and wife, Appellants. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
James M. Blackford and Edwin E. Allen, Eugene, argued the cause for appellants. On the briefs were Bartle & Allen and James M. Blackford, Eugene.
Eldon F. Caley, Roseburg, argued the cause for respondents and cross-appellants. On the brief were Long, Neumer, Dole & Caley, Roseburg.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and SLOAN, O'CONNELL, LUSK and DENECKE, JJ.
This is a suit for a declaratory judgment in which plaintiffs seek a determination of their rights under a written right-of-way agreement. Plaintiffs also pray for a judgment allowing them attorney's fees in accordance with the terms of that agreement. Defendants appeal from a decree interpreting the agreement in accordance with plaintiffs' prayer. Plaintiffs cross-appeal from that part of the decree denying plaintiffs an award of attorney's fees.
On March 26, 1954 plaintiffs and defendants entered into an agreement entitled 'Right-of-Way Agreement' which granted a nonexclusive easement of right of way over plaintiffs' farm land to defendants. The agreement contained the following covenant:
Defendants contend that the foregoing paragraph of the agreement gives them the right to substitute a cattle guard and stockgate for any gate placed across the right of way, including the gate at the highway. Plaintiffs contend that defendants have the right to make such substitution only at the interior cross-fences. Specifically, defendants rely upon the proviso that they 'may at their option and at their expense install and maintain cattle guards of sufficient width to turn livestock in lieu of any gates permitted hereunder.' It will be noted that this proviso is a part of the sentence which provides for installation of 'additional gates.' These are gates other than that which is installed at the point where the roadway connects with the highway. We therefore construe the proviso as being applicable only to the additional gates.
Defendants further contend that changes in the character of the use of an easement may be made by the dominant owner if the changes do not materially increase the burden upon the servient estate. It is asserted that the burden on the servient estate would not be increased by the substitution of a cattle...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adair v. McAtee
...party entered into after the decision in Keller v. Lonsdale, 216 Or. 339, 339 P.2d 112 (1959), and certainly after Gorman v. Jones, 232 Or. 416, 375 P.2d 821 (1962), were drawn with the understanding that in the absence of an express provision for attorney's fees on appeal they would not be......
-
Pearson v. Sigmund
...and was required to allow reasonable attorney fees to defendants as the prevailing parties in this case. Gorman et ux v. Jones et ux, 232 Or. 416, 420, 375 P.2d 821 (1962). Plaintiffs concede that the parties stipulated on trial that if attorney fees were awarded the trial court might deter......
-
Uris v. State Compensation Dept.
...does not exist unless it is found in the statute: Adair v. McAtee, 236 Or. 391, 396, 385 P.2d 621, 388 P.2d 748; Gorman et ux. v. Jones et ux., 232 Or. 416, 420, 375 P.2d 821. There are two sections of the Workmen's Compensation Law providing for the allowance of an attorney's fee by the co......
-
Long v. Sendelbach
...480 (1966). Oregon follows that general rule. Jones et ux. v. Edwards et ux., 219 Or. 429, 433, 347 P.2d 846 (1959); Gorman v. Jones, 232 Or. 416, 419, 375 P.2d 821 (1962). When the right of way is created by implication, the nature and extent of the right of way is measured by reasonable e......