Jackson Elec. Membership Corp. v. Echols
| Decision Date | 12 September 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 33563,No. 1,33563,1 |
| Citation | 66 S.E.2d 770,84 Ga.App. 610 |
| Parties | JACKSON ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORP. v. ECHOLS et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where plaintiff obtained from defendants a blanket form of easement to erect an electric transmission or distribution line across defendants' lands, and where such authority thus granted did not specify or limit the location or extent of such line or lines, the subsequent erection and completion of a line or lines across defendants' lands served to fix and determine that feature of the grant, and the plaintiff was thereafter precluded from erecting or extending additional lines on or across defendants' land without first obtaining permission therefor or condemning a new right of way.
George W. Westmoreland, Jefferson, for plaintiff in error.
Rupert A. Brown, Athens, R. Howard Gordon, Danielsville, for defendants in error.
The Jackson Electric Membership Corporation sued Mrs. C. C. Echols and her husband C. C. Echols to enjoin their interference with their agents in the erection of an electric power transmission or distribution line across the property of the defendants. The plaintiff based its claim of right upon a blanket form of easement executed by Mrs. Echols in August, 1941, which conveyed to the plaintiff the right to enter upon the described lands of the defendant and 'to place, construct, operate, repair, maintain, relocate and replace thereon and in or upon all streets, roads or highways abutting said lands an electric transmission or distribution line or system, and to cut and trim trees and shrubbery to the extent necessary to keep them clear of said electric lines or system to cut down from time to time all dead, weak, leaning or dangerous trees that are tall enough to strike the wires in falling.' By this instrument no particular location of the right of way or easement was specified.
The defendants answered admitting that the plaintiff was granted the easement, but setting up that the plaintiff had erected and completed a line or system of lines over defendants' property prior to beginning the present job and that the original construction exhausted the easement granted and that it would be necessary for the plaintiff to obtain permission or condemn a new right of way before it could erect additional lines, and that neither of these things had been done. Defendant set up that the erection of this additional line over her property would damage her in the amount of $350 and she prayed judgment for that amount against the plaintiff and for an injunction to restrain further trespasses by the plaintiff. All equity features of the case having been eliminated by certain interlocutory rulings of the trial court and by the fact that pending the litigation the plaintiff had, under such interlocutory rulings, completed the erection of the line or facilities in question, the case was tried as to the question of damages only, the trial court instructing the jury that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Properties v. Nichols
...376 S.E.2d 872 (1989); Martin v. Seaboard Air Line R., 139 Ga. 807, 809(1), 77 S.E. 1060 (1913); Jackson Elec. Membership Corp. v. Echols, 84 Ga.App. 610, 611-612, 66 S.E.2d 770 (1951). In contrast, a change in “the manner, frequency, and intensity of use” of the easement within the physica......
-
Spears v. Kansas City Power & Light Co.
...the rule where a blanket form of easement to erect an electric transmission line by contract is granted, see Jackson Electric, etc. Corp. v. Echols, 84 Ga.App. 610, 66 S.E.2d 770. In my opinion on the facts in this case there is no distinction between an unreasonable use of the easement acq......
-
Wilann Props. I, LLC v. Ga. Power Co.
...omitted.) Bibb County v. Ga. Power Co., 241 Ga.App. 131, 133(2), 525 S.E.2d 136 (1999). See Jackson Electric Membership Corp. v. Echols, 84 Ga.App. 610, 611, 66 S.E.2d 770 (1951) (“While the easement relied upon by the plaintiff did not specifically designate the location or the extent of t......
-
Bibb County v. Georgia Power Co.
...Georgia Power first obtaining from the landowners a further or additional easement, whether by condemnation or otherwise.6Jackson Elec. Membership Corp. v. Echols7 explained the consequences of a contrary To construe the original easement in any other manner would be to authorize the [utili......
-
Real Property - T. Daniel Brannan and William J. Sheppard
...as they were not shown to continue on property farther west. Id. at 134, 525 S.E.2d at 139. 85. Id. at 133-34, 525 S.E.2d at 139. 86. 84 Ga. App. 610, 66 S.E.2d 770 (1951). 87. 241 Ga. App. at 134, 525 S.E.2d at 139 (quoting Echols, 84 Ga. App. at 612, 66 S.E.2d at 772). 88. Id. at 135, 525......