Gunson v. Healy
| Decision Date | 02 October 1882 |
| Parties | Gunson <I>versus</I> Healy. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Berks county: Of January Term 1881, No. 185.
Jeff. Snyder and Geo. F. Baer, for the plaintiffs in error.— Where there is an express grant of a private unrestricted right of way to a particular place, the grant is not to be restricted to access to the land for purposes for which access would be required at the time of the grant. The fact that the owner thereof has had occasion for a long series of years to use it only for that one purpose does not restrict his right to use it subsequently for other purposes: Bombaugh v. Miller, 1 Norris 209; Hall v. McCaughey, 1 P. F. S. 43; Holt v. Sargeant, 15 Gray 97; Hayford v. Spokesfield, 100 Mass. 491; Bartlett v. Prescott, 41 N. H. 493; Washburn on Easements 216; Finch v. Great Western R. R., 28 Weekly Rep. 229; Newcomen v. Coulson, 5 Chan. Div. 133; United Land Co. v. Great Eastern R. R., 17 Eq. Cases 158. See also Goddard's Law of Easements 315.
A grant is to be construed most strongly against the grantor, if there is any doubt; Klaer v. Ridgway, 5 Norris 529. The grant here was of a road, not a mere right of way. Gunson could not only use the road for his individual access to his wharf, but could grant or license others to use it in connection with the use of any part of his property, for any purpose, and the question whether he received a consideration or not for such user was immaterial.
A. G. Green and James N. Ermentrout (Daniel Ermentrout with them), for the defendant in error.—At the time of the reservation of the way, and for years afterwards, the Gunson tract was used as a farm. The use of a way must be according to the grant or the occasion of it, and not exceed it: Kirkham v. Sharp, 1 Whart. 333. The intention of the parties was expressed in the agreement of 1864 that the way was "for the private use of the said Thomas Gunson, his heirs and assigns." To hold that he can indefinitely license others to use it for the purposes of landing facilities on his land, is to unjustly increase the burden upon the servient tenement, in a manner never contemplated by the parties. A right of way for farm purposes does not include the right to transport coal or lime from a quarry: Washburn on Easements *187, § 6; Cowling v. Higginson, 4 Mees. & W. 245; Jackson v. Stacey, Holt's N. P. 453; Jamison v. McCredy, 5 W. & S. 140; Cox v. Freedley, 9 Casey 124; Connery v. Brooke, 23 P. F. S. 83.
The subject of complaint in the first specification is the refusal of the court to charge, as requested in defendant's second point: "That the right of way in dispute is appurtenant to the land of Thomas Gunson, and he and all persons, using his land with his permission, have a right to pass and repass to and from said premises over and upon said right of way."
This proposition fairly presents the controlling question in the case; and, in view of the uncontradicted evidence on which it is based, we are clearly of opinion it should have been affirmed. The right of way is undoubtedly appurtenant to Gunson's land; its use is not in any manner qualified or restricted, and hence it follows that he and those who, by his permission, use the land for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parham v. Bradberry
...993; Chapman v. New Market Mfg. Co., 74 N.H. 424; Luster v. Garner, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 769; Bennett v. Selegman, 32 Miss. 500; Gunson v. Healey, 100 Pa. 42. It virtually a universal rule that where an easement is created by a general grant, reservation or covenant which does not contain langu......
-
Wickham v. Twaddell
... ... Smith, 146 Pa. 276; Cannon v. Boyd, 73 Pa. 179; ... Overdeer v. Updegraff, 69 Pa. 110; Zell v ... Universalist Society, 119 Pa. 390; Gunson v ... Healy, 100 Pa. 42; Pierce v. Cleland, 133 Pa ... The ... jurisdiction of equity, by injunction, to prevent and ... restrain ... ...
-
City of Canton v. Canton Cotton Warehouse Co.
...of such incidental use as is necessary to its complete enjoyment. Abbot v. Butler, 59 N. H., 317; Walker v. Pierce, 38 Vt. 94; Gunson v. Haley, 100 Pa. 42; Holt Sargent, 15 Gray, 97; Bartlett v. Prescott, 41 N. H., 317; Wells v. Solman, 34 N. H., 840. Argued orally by Marcellus Green, for a......
-
Cornell-Andrews Smelting Co. v. Boston & P.R. Corp.
...v. Grant, 210 Mass. 302, 96 N. E. 672;Abbott v. Butler, 59 N. H. 317;Arnold v. Fee, 148 N. Y. 214, 42 N. E. 588;Gunson v. Healy, 100 Pa. 42. Accordingly, so far as the way to County street is concerned, we find no error in the rulings made at the trial. We do not overlook the fact that ther......