Horky v. Kentucky Utilities Co.
| Decision Date | 24 June 1960 |
| Citation | 336 S.W.2d 588 |
| Parties | John HORKY, Appellant, v. KENTUCKY UTILITIES COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Pierce Lively, Nelson D. Rodes, Jr., Danville, for appellant.
Stoll, Keenon & Park, Lexington, Joe G. Davis, Danville, for appellee.
Kentucky Utilities Company, owner of the dominant estate, sought to enjoin Horky, owner of the servient estate, from erecting a building within the boundary of its easement. High voltage wires purveying electricity to various communities and enterprises were strung throughout the length of the easement. If built according to plans the roof of the building would be approximately 14 feet lower than the wires and 2 to 6 feet from a point directly beneath the closest wire. The trial court enjoined the construction and Horky appeals.
Witnesses for the power company testified that the proposed building would create a fire hazard to its lines which could cause an interruption of service from thirty minutes to three hours and could create a danger to persons and property because of falling wires. These same witnesses testified that the loss caused by interrupted service would be irreparable insomuch as the power company cannot collect when the meters do not run, thus forever losing the income for the period of disruption. The testimony of these witnesses is uncontradicted by either expert or layman. The trial court, under this testimony, could and did find as a matter of fact that the construction would create a fire hazard to its lines with possible results as heretofore indicated.
The use of the easement must be as reasonable and as little burdensome to the landowner as the nature and purpose of the easement will permit. Buck Creek R. Co. v. Haws, 253 Ky. 203, 69 S.W.2d 333. But he has no right to use the land subject to the easement in such manner as to interfere with the reasonable and prudent exercise and enjoyment of the easement by its owner. Kentucky & West Virginia Power Co. v. Elkhorn City Land Co., 212 Ky. 624, 279 S.W. 1082.
In 17A Am.Jur., p. 718, it is stated:
'The rights of an easement owner must be measured and defined by the purpose and character of the easement, and the right to use the land remains in the owner of the fee so far as such right is consistent with the purpose and character of the easement. * * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Western Massachusetts Elec. Co. v. Sambo's of Massachusetts, Inc.
...217 Ga. 699, 702-703, 124 S.E.2d 634 (1962); Central Ky. Natural Gas Co. v. Huls, 241 S.W.2d 986, 987 (Ky.1951); Horky v. Kentucky Util. Co., 336 S.W.2d 588, 589-590 (Ky.1960); Missouri Power & Light Co. v. Barnett, 354 S.W.2d 873, 878 (Mo.1962); Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Bowman, 229 N.......
-
Kell v. Appalachian Power Co.
...220 N.C. 57, 16 S.E.2d 453 (1941); Georgia Utilities Co. v. Ward, 37 Ga.App. 45, 138 S.E. 588 (1927).11 See, e.g., Horky v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 336 S.W.2d 588 (Ky.1960); In re Omaha Public Power Dist., 168 Neb. 120, 95 N.W.2d 209 (1959); Los Angeles v. Igna, 208 Cal.App.2d 338, 25 Cal.R......
-
Baker v. Hines, 2012–CA–000340–MR.
...be reasonable and as little burdensome to the landowner as the nature and purpose of the easement will permit. Horky v. Kentucky Utilities Co., Ky., 336 S.W.2d 588 (1960). Cf. Farmer v. Kentucky Utilities Co., Ky., 642 S.W.2d 579 (1982). The nature and extent of an easement must be determin......
-
Blair v. City of Pikeville
...essential to the fair enjoyment of the easement. Maxwell v. McAtee, 9 B.Mon. (48 Ky.) 20; 28 C.J.S. Easements Sec. 75; Horky v. Ky. Utilities Co., Ky., 336 S.W.2d 588; 17A Am.Jur., Easements, Sec. 112; Vol. 3, Tiffany on Real Property, 3rd Ed., Sec. The principles involved were recognized i......