M. & M. Pipe Line Co. v. Menke, 7597.
Decision Date | 22 October 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 7597.,7597. |
Parties | M. & M. PIPE LINE CO. v. MENKE. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Waller County; S. A. McCall, Judge.
Suit by C. A. Menke against the M. & M. Pipe Line Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Julius H. Runge, of Dallas, Allan B. Hannay, of Houston, and C. D. Duncan, of Bellville, for appellant.
Krueger & Sullivan, of Bellville, for appellee.
Menke sued the pipe line company to recover (among other items not involved in this appeal) damages for the death of thirty-two head of cattle from Texas fever (and certain incidental damages in the way of care and dipping), the result of their escape from Menke's 2,360-acre pasture into tick-infested territory through breaches in the pasture fence made by employees of the pipe line company in the course of laying a pipe line through the pasture. Menke recovered judgment upon a special issue verdict, and the pipe line company has appealed.
The appeal is predicated upon propositions to the effect that the following defenses were established as a matter of law:
1. Under a proper construction of an easement contract executed by Menke in favor of the pipe line company, the latter acquired the right to breach the fences where and when necessary to the exercise of its rights under the contract, was liable only for damage to the fences, and was neither obligated nor had the right to rebuild or repair the fences.
2. Contributory negligence on Menke's part in permitting the introduction of infected cattle and other animals into his pasture.
The pertinent portions of the easement contract follow: For a recited cash consideration of $113.80 Menke conveyed to the pipe line company,
The pipe line company pleaded that the contract contemplated, as was well known to Menke, the following separate operations in the laying of the pipe line, in each of which operations it was necessary to use heavy machinery and to breach the fence at the points of entrance and exit: (1) Digging trenches, (2) hauling pipe on the premises, (3) laying pipe, (4) welding pipe, (5) covering trenches. The evidence showed that in the course of these several operations the fence was breached a number of times and Menke's cattle escaped. Menke or his employees put up the fence after each breach as soon as it was discovered, but not in time to prevent the escape of cattle. One of the witnesses described the manner in which the fence was breached as follows: (A well-known method in certain portions of the state). It is not questioned that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury finding that the cattle died from Texas fever contracted as the result of escape of some of the cattle through breaches in the fence into infected territory.
In support of the first proposition above, appellant cites Houston & E. T. Ry. Co. v. Adams, 58 Tex. 476; Mexican Nat. Const. Co. v. Meddlegge, 75 Tex. 634, 13 S. W. 257; Gulf Co. v. Watson (Tex. Civ. App.) 8 S.W. (2d) 957; Central P. & L. Co. v. Johnston (Tex. Civ. App.) 24 S.W.(2d) 762; 1 C. J. 964-966. The gist of appellant's contention, which these authorities are cited to support, is that under the easement agreement appellant obtained the legal right to breach the fences when and wherever necessary or proper in the construction, maintenance, and repair of the pipe line, obligating itself only to pay compensation for pecuniary damages to the fences; and that there could be no recovery so long as there was no negligence on its part and no exceeding of the authority thus granted in the easement agreement. In the abstract the general principle thus announced is correct, assuming appellant has correctly construed the contract.
In a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Center Drive-In Theatre, Inc. v. City of Derby
...the enclosure around the servient land and to guarantee the full use and enjoyment of the land to the owner thereof. M. & M. Pipe Line Co. v. Menke,45 S.W.2d 344, 345-346 (Tex.Civ.App.). Where the instrument is silent, the owner of an easement has a duty to make such repairs as are necessar......
-
Davis v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 5--5273
...a fence is breached, the easement holder would replace the wires on the posts to preserve the enclosure. M & M Pipeline Company v. Menke, 45 S.W.2d 344 (Tex.Civ.App.1931). In the case just cited the situation was analogized to the requirement that the owner of a right of passage over anothe......