Hayes v. Moreau
| Decision Date | 01 May 1962 |
| Citation | 104 N.H. 124,180 A.2d 438 |
| Parties | Priscilla C. HAYES v. Rhoda C. MOREAU. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Fuller, Flynn & Riordan, Portsmouth, for plaintiff.
Boynton, Waldron & Dill, Portsmouth, for defendant.
The plaintiff acquired title to the property in question, Lot #1 of a subdivision of the Nellie E. Lowe estate with the buildings thereon, by deed from the defendant dated March 7, 1953. At the time of this conveyance the water and sewer pipes servicing the buildings on this lot extended across Lot #6 of the same subdivision, then owned by a third party, and were connected with mains on Elwyn Avenue. In the process of excavating for a dwelling in 1956, the owner of Lot #6 discovered these pipes and demanded their removal. The plaintiff complied with this demand and had connections made with mains on McNabb Court at a cost of $252.08 thereby obviating the crossing of these pipes over Lot #6. The Trial Court rendered a verdict in her favor for that amount plus interest.
The defendant acquired title to Lot #1 from the administratrix of the Nellie E. Lowe Estate on December 12, 1951. There was no mention in this deed of an easement over Lot #6 for the maintenance of water and sewer pipes from the dwelling on Lot #1. The conveyance of Lot #1 to the defendant was the first out of the tract owned by the decedent. Lot #6 was conveyed July 3, 1952 'subject to existing sewer and water privileges.' While all of this tract was in the common ownership of Nellie Lowe or her estate no easement could arise as an owner cannot have an easement over his own land independent of his ownership of it. DeRochemont v. Boston & M. R. Railroad, 64 N.H. 500, 15 A. 131.
The question therefore is whether such an easement was conveyed by implied grant in the conveyance of Lot #1 by the administratrix of the Lowe estate to the defendant. The majority rule appears to be that where during unity of title the owner imposes an apparently permanent and obvious servitude on one tenement in favor of another, which at the time of severance of title is in use and is reasonably necessary for the fair enjoyment of the tenement to which such use is beneficial, then upon a severance of ownership a grant of the 'dominant tenement' includes by implication the right to continue such use. Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156, 9 N.W.2d 421; Frantz v. Collins, 21 Ill.2d 446, 173 N.E.2d 437; Lewis v. Scroggins, 184 Kan. 684, 339 P.2d 24; 3 Tiffany, Real Property (3d ed.) s. 781. In the recent case of Elliott v. Ferguson, 104 N.H. ----, 177 A.2d 387, we characterized as 'the more sensible' the rule that a reasonable necessity creates a presumption of such an implied grant. See also, Cotter v. Cotter, 103 N.H. 551, 176 A.2d 316; Spaulding v. Clark, 104 N.H. ----, 177 A.2d 400.
'However, since the doctrine rests upon the theory of an implied grant, the circumstances surrounding the transaction are controlling and they must be such as to raise a 'reasonable implication of right granted.' * * *' The right is granted or reserved because the parties so agreed. Elliott v. Ferguson, supra.
The agreed statement filed by the parties in this case states that when the defendant obtained her deed to Lot #1 from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morton v. State
...rights or easements such as those of access, light, view and air, in favor of one part of his land over another. Hayes v. Moreau, 104 N.H. 124, 180 A.2d 438; Goudie v. Fisher, 79 N.H. 424, 111 A. 282. See Restatement, Property, s. 450, p. 2901. Furthermore, since he was aware by virtue of t......
-
Ball v. Gross
...Washington Realty Corporation, 141 W.Va. 627, 92 S.E.2d 891 (1956); Rocks v. Brosius, 241 Md. 612, 217 A.2d 531 (1966); Hayes v. Moreau, 104 N.H. 124, 180 A.2d 438 (1962); Scott v. Powers, 140 Colo. 14, 342 P.2d 664 (1959). In equity an owner of land will not be permitted to accomplish by u......
-
ONE HARBOR FINANCIAL LTD. v. Hynes Prop.
...(holding one cannot grant an easement to oneself; one can only reserve such interest in land granted to another); Hayes v. Moreau, 104 N.H. 124, 180 A.2d 438 (1962) (recognizing that while all of the tract was in common ownership of a single owner, no easement could arise in favor of one lo......
-
McLoon v. Collins, 6563
...with a corresponding limitation so that they may not interfere with maintenance and use of the wharf by the plaintiff. Hayes v. Moreau,104 N.H. 124, 180 A.2d 438 (1962). Finally, the defendants strenuously assert that they were deprived of rights under both statute and rule of court to have......