Graybill v. Corlett
| Citation | 154 P. 730,60 Colo. 551 |
| Decision Date | 07 February 1916 |
| Docket Number | 8422. |
| Parties | GRAYBILL v. CORLETT. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Error to District Court, Rio Grande County; A. Watson McHendrie Judge.
Action by Clayton C. Graybill against Charles M. Corlett. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
John T. Jacobs, of Greeley, and H. M. Howard, of Monte Vista, for plaintiff in error.
George M. Corlett, of Monte Vista, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error is the owner of a tract of land which was for a number of years irrigated through a lateral across the land of defendant in error. In 1906 defendant in error destroyed the lateral, and this suit was begun by plaintiff in error to have his title to said ditch quieted and defendant enjoined from interfering with its use. The trial court entered judgment for the defendant.
It appears that the lateral in question was constructed by one Farrar in 1886, under a parol license from one Warren, the owner of the land upon which it is now located, for the irrigation of lands not involved in this action. In 1890 one Kramer, plaintiff's grantor, obtained from Warren, who was the agent of his wife, the owner of the servient estate permission to run water through the ditch for irrigating the land now owned by plaintiff. In 1892 Kramer conveyed to the plaintiff, and the latter obtained water through the ditch for the land thus conveyed until 1906. He testified that he put in a new headgate for this lateral, and several times cleaned and repaired the ditch; no one at any time objected to his use of it. The defendant was, for 10 years prior to 1905, the agent of Mrs. Warren, and had charge of her said land. In 1905 he purchased this land, and early in 1906 he informed the plaintiff that he could no longer use the ditch. Soon afterwards defendant plowed up the ditch, and it has never since been used.
There is no conflict of evidence on points material to the case--it appearing that plaintiff's grantor had a parol license to use the ditch, that it was used for the irrigation of plaintiff's land for 16 years, and until it was destroyed by the defendant; that plaintiff cleaned and repaired it from time to time; and that defendant took title to the Warren land with full knowledge of these facts.
From defendant's testimony it appeals that he acted upon the belief that plaintiff had no right to have the ditch remain on the land, because there had been no conveyance of a right of way. The court entered a judgment for defendant, without any findings of facts or law, and we are therefore without information as to the grounds of his decision.
It is too well settled to require discussion that under the circumstances above stated a licensee holds under an irrevocable license, and his right is as valid as if acquired by grant. De Graffenried v. Savage, 9 Colo.App. 131, 47 P 902; Tynon v. Despain, 22 Colo. 240, 43 P. 1039.
Defendant took the land subject to the burden of this ditch. 22 Colo. 250, 43 P. 1042.
Some time prior to the beginning of this suit the plaintiff began a proceeding to condemn a right of way for a ditch over the defendant's land, having been advised by his then counsel that he had no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS v. Park County
...and operation of water works facilities as a right of way, irrevocable license, servitude, or easement. See Graybill v. Corlett, 60 Colo. 551, 553, 154 P. 730, 731 (1916); Knudson v. Frost, 56 Colo. 530, 531, 139 P. 533, 533 (1914); Arthur Irrigation Co. v. Strayer, 50 Colo. 371, 374-75, 11......
-
State ex rel. Industrial Commission v. Pressley
...be with knowledge (1) of the alternative remedies, and (2) that the acceptance of one waives the right to the other. See Graybill v. Corlett, 60 Colo. 551, 154 P. 730; Craig v. Meriwether, 84 Ark. 298, 105 S.W. 585; 28 C.J.S., Election of Remedies, § 24. With this construction, section 56-9......
-
Lobato v. Taylor
...of the parties. Id. § 2.9 cmt. e. The Restatement does not have a requirement of deception, neither does Colorado.8See Graybill v. Corlett, 60 Colo. 551, 154 P. 730 (1916); Hoehne Ditch Co. v. John Flood Ditch Co., 68 Colo. 531, 191 P. 108 (1920). An easement by estoppel is an equitable rem......
-
Rippey v. Denver United States National Bank
...is Bogert, Trusts and Trustees (2d ed. 1962) Sec. 945, and Holscher v. Ferry, 131 Colo. 190, 280 P.2d 655 (1955); Graybill v. Corlett, 60 Colo. 551, 154 P. 730 (1916). Thus a forced election of remedies would not have been of benefit to either party and would only have served to make a comp......