Hahn v. Baker Lodge No. 47, A.F. & A.M.

• Decision Date: 24 June 1891
• Parties: HAHN v. BAKER LODGE NO. 47, A.F. & A.M.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

27 P. 166

21 Or. 30

HAHN v. BAKER LODGE NO. 47, A.F. & A.M.

Supreme Court of Oregon

June 24, 1891

Appeal from circuit court, Baker county, JAMES A. FEE, Judge.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Grants of rooms or apartments in a building, like leases of the same, must be construed according to the intention of the parties, and with reference to the subject-matter upon which they operate.

Where the language of the grant does not purport to convey an estate or interest in the land or building, or any portion of it, but only a certain room located in such building, namely "the middle room or hall of the upper story," carefully distinguishing by its provisions the room granted from other rooms, and contains no stipulation as to rebuilding in case of fire or other casualty, and such building is destroyed by fire, and the identity and existence of the room as such were extinguished, there was nothing remaining upon which the conveyance could operate, and the rights of the defendant terminated.

If an easement for a particular purpose is granted, when the purpose no longer exists there is an end of the easement.

Williams & Wood, for plaintiff.

Hyde Johns & Olmstead and T.C. Hyde, for defendant.

LORD J.

This is a suit in equity, brought by the plaintiff to restrain the defendant from interfering with certain alleged rights in certain premises claimed by the plaintiff. The facts out of which the question presented for our consideration arose are substantially these: The plaintiff was the owner of a certain lot in Baker City, upon which was erected a two-story building, the middle room or hall in the upper story of which was owned by the defendant, and used as a lodge hall, and, as appurtenant thereto, he owned an easement as a means of ingress and egress. The room owned by the defendant, being a middle room, had front and rear walls and two lateral walls. A fire occurring, the whole building was substantially destroyed. The roof, floors, joists, windows and doors were totally consumed by the flames; and at the same time the rear and front walls were entirely destroyed to their foundation, and only a portion of the lateral walls remained, which were fire-cracked, shaky, and unfit for use. So far as relates to the second story, only a portion of the lateral walls were left above the second story, and as they stood they were unsafe, and practically useless for rebuilding purposes. The other walls were destroyed, so that the middle room in the second story, used as a hall by the defendants, and its foundations, were practically destroyed by the conflagration, and its identity lost or extinguished. While there is some conflict in the evidence, there is none upon which to base the contention that there was any sufficient portion of the lateral walls remaining to preserve the identity of the middle room, or that such portions as remained were sufficiently safe for rebuilding purposes as they stood. The practical deduction from the evidence considered as a whole, leaves no doubt that the middle room in the upper story, owned by the defendant, was wholly destroyed, and that the building itself was substantially destroyed. Upon this state of facts, the inquiry is, had the defendant the right, which it undertook to exercise, and which this suit is brought to enjoin, of rebuilding the walls for the purpose of reconstructing an upper story, and recreating a middle room, to be used as a lodge hall in the place of the one destroyed by the fire? By its conveyance the defendant had granted to it what was known and styled as the middle room of the upper story of the building, and an easement of ingress and egress. There is no provision in it, or right given to the defendant, in case of the destruction of the upper story by fire, or of the building itself, to rebuild it. It does not, in terms, grant or convey the land, and does not purport to grant or convey the...