Steere v. Tiffany

• Decision Date: 04 February 1882
• Citation: Steere v. Tiffany, 13 R.I. 568 (R.I. 1882)
• Parties: CHARLES L. STEERE v. JAMES TIFFANY.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

13 R.I. 568

CHARLES L. STEERE v. JAMES TIFFANY.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

February 4, 1882

An easement may be lost by cesser of use for twenty years, or by renunciation or abandonment as shown by decisive acts.

Hence when a way had been laid out for the common use of lots bounded on it, and A., the owner of one of these lots, had appropriated to his own use the part of the way opposite his lot:

Held, that A. had abandoned his easement in the way and could not maintain an action against the owner of another of the lots for obstructing a portion of the way.

The character of an easement created by implication or estoppel is determined by the circumstances in which the easement was created.

Hence when it was clear that a way was to be used in common as a whole, and a part of it was appropriated by an owner of one of the dominant tenements:

Held, that the act of appropriation was an abandonment by such owner of his easement in the whole way.

(Image Omitted)

TABLE TRESPASS ON THE CASE. Heard by the court, jury trial being waived.

This action was trespass on the case for obstructing a right of way over the small triangle of land marked i, k, l, on the accompanying plat. The plaintiff and the defendant both derived title from the same proprietor, and their lots extended by the descriptions of their deeds to the middle line of the way b, a, c, d, the way being laid out and platted for the common use of all the lot owners on the plat. After all the platted lots had been sold, the city of Providence laid out the area enclosed by the lines f, e, h, g, as a public highway, called Summer Street. Subsequently the owner of lot No. 5 obstructed the triangle marked l, i, k, and the owner of lot No. 13 thereupon brought this action.

Charles H. Parkhurst & Charles L. Steere, for plaintiff.

Perce & Hallett, for defendant.

DURFEE C. J.

The only defence set up by the defendant is, that the way which he is sued for obstructing had been lost before obstruction by renunciation or abandonment. It is well settled that an easement may be so lost, though where the only proof of it is cesser of use, the cesser of use must have continued for at least twenty years. Where, however, there is other proof showing clearly an intent to renounce or abandon, the easement may be lost in a much briefer time. Thus where A had an easement of light in the land of B., enjoyed by means of a window opening in an ancient wall of his house, which he pulled down and rebuilt without the window, it was held, after seventeen years, B. meanwhile having built so as to intercept the light, that the easement had been abandoned and lost. Moore v. Rawson, 3 B. & C. 332. See, also, Liggins v. Inge, 7 Bing. 682; Pope v. Devereaux, 5 Gray, 409; Canny v. Andrews, 123 Mass. 155. It is not, it has been said, so much the duration of the cesser as the nature of the act done by the owner of the easement, or of the adverse act acquiesced in, and the intention which the one or the other indicates, that is material. Regina v. Chorley, 12 Q. B. 515, 519. Where A., having a way leading from his house and barn on his own land to the highway over the land of B., removed house and barn, ploughed and planted the land, and fenced up the end of the way, it was held, twelve years after the removal of the house, that the way had been renounced and lost. Crain v. Fox, 16 Barb. S.C. 184. The case of Corning v. Gould, 16 Wend. 531,is still more like the case at bar. There the parties owned adjoining lots, with a private way for their common use along the dividing line, which was the centre of the way. The plaintiff, four or five years before suit, built a house on his lot which encroached on the way, and then run a fence through the centre, thus taking half to himself and leaving the other half to the adjoining owner, who sold to the defendant. The defendant proceeded to occupy a part of his half with a house. The court held that the way had...