Tenney Telephone Co. v. United States

Decision Date13 March 1936
Docket NumberNo. 5604.,5604.
Citation82 F.2d 788
PartiesTENNEY TELEPHONE CO. v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

I. H. Hale, of La Crosse, Wis., for appellant.

Arne C. Wiprud, of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges, and BALTZELL, District Judge.

BALTZELL, District Judge.

This proceeding was begun by the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as the Government) for the purpose of condemning certain lands and easements in Buffalo county, Wis., to be used in the construction, maintenance, and operation of what is commonly known as Lock and Dam No. 4 in the Mississippi river. It is the intention and purpose of the Government to maintain at all times in the river at that place a nine-foot navigation channel, which calls for a flowage easement up to an elevation of 667 feet above the mean sea level datum, over, across, and through the property in question, as well as other property described in the condemnation petition. Commissioners were regularly appointed for the purpose of awarding damages to any landowner, and the owner of any easement or any property right thereby affected. Damages in the sum of $1,590 were awarded by such Commissioners to the appellant telephone company for the taking of an easement or property right which it asserted over certain lands taken by the Government in this proceeding. The Government appealed from such award to the District Court. A jury was waived, and the court filed special findings of fact from which it concluded "that the respondent's claim for compensation in these proceedings be and it is hereby disallowed, without costs." Judgment was accordingly entered, and the telephone company is now prosecuting this appeal.

There was entered into by and between the parties a stipulation as to certain facts, at the conclusion of which Mr. Gleason, attorney for appellant, stated, "I take it then, Mr. Wiprud, that under our stipulation that the only question involved in the case is the establishment of our property rights, and if we establish them, we are entitled to the $159.00, and if we fail we are not." To which Mr. Wiprud, attorney for the Government, responded, "That is correct." The stipulation also provides that the sum of $1,590 is just compensation for the easement taken. By this stipulation the Government admits the existence of an easement, the value of which is not in dispute. The easement extends over the lands, the fee of which was owned by the persons named as grantors in the instruments executed to appellant prior to the time of its entry upon such lands. The question, therefore, for determination is whether or not appellant has a property right in the easement appropriated by the Government in this proceeding for which it is entitled to just compensation; if so, it is entitled to $1,590; if not, it is entitled to nothing.

A farmers' co-operative telephone company was originally organized more than thirty years ago for the purpose of supplying telephone communication between the subscribers for their mutual convenience and benefit. Poles were furnished by the farmers and much work in the construction of the line was originally done by them. About thirty years ago a corporation was organized, and a great deal of the stock was subscribed for and is now owned by the persons who constructed the original line. That corporation is still in existence and is the appellant in this case. The owners of the land on which the poles were placed, and over which the wires extended, gave their permission for the construction of the line, in writing, to the company, before such construction was commenced. A written form was prepared by a lawyer, and all permits were on the same form. The following permit was executed by one of the land owners over whose land a telephone line was afterwards constructed, and is a part of the easement in question:

"This indenture, made the 11th day of June, A. D. 1907, between Edward Truempler of the town of Alma in the county of Buffalo, in the state of Wisconsin, party of the first part, and The Tenney Telephone Company, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the state of Wisconsin, party of the second part,

"Witnesseth, that in consideration of the sum of one dollar, now paid to the said party of the first part by the party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, the said party of the first part hereby grants and conveys unto the said party of the second part and to its assigns and legal representatives and to its agents and servants full and free right and privilege, from time to time hereafter at its and their will and pleasure to go, return, pass and repass over the lines hereinafter described and to erect and maintain upon said lands telephone poles and string wires thereon for the purpose of operating and maintaining over said lands a line of telephone communication where said telephone line and poles are now, or hereafter may be located over said lands.

"The lands of the said parties of the first part above referred to are situated in Buffalo County, Wisconsin, and are described as follows: East half of the South West quarter, Sect. 25, Town 22, Range 13 West.

"In Witness Whereof, the said parties of the first part have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written.

"Edward Truempler Seal. "-------- Seal. "In presence of Peter Wold."

(The italicized portion of the above represents handwritten insertions in an otherwise printed form.)

A similar instrument was executed by Fred Gleiter, of Alma, Buffalo county, Wis., a landowner over whose land a telephone line was afterwards constructed, and is a part of the easement in question. This instrument was executed on the 4th day of September, 1906, and was witnessed by John Accola. These instruments were neither acknowledged nor recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Buffalo county, Wis.

At the time of the trial, the two aforementioned instruments were all that were produced, although the testimony of Dr. J. S. Tenney, the original promoter of the telephone company, discloses the fact that similar instruments were executed by all landowners over whose land the telephone line extends and delivered to appellant before such line was constructed. About 106 permits for the use of land by appellant, similar in character to those above mentioned, are in the possession of appellant, but which land, with the exception of that described in the aforementioned permits, is not involved in this proceeding. The telephone line in question, and the land upon which the poles are located, have been in possession of appellant for practically thirty years last past, and its right to enter thereon, repair, replace its poles, and maintain its lines, has never been questioned. In other words the owners of the fee of the land over which appellant's lines extend, and all other persons, have, for thirty years or more, recognized and respected the rights of appellant to maintain an easement over such lands for the purpose set forth in the written instruments executed between the owners of the fee and appellant many years ago.

It is conceded by appellant that the instruments purporting to convey an easement over the lands described in the petition for condemnation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • MILBREW, INC. AND AMBER LABORATORIES v. Commissioner
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • October 19, 1981
    ...may be valid as between the parties. See State v. Barkdoll, 99 Wis. 2d 163, 298 N.W. 2d 539, 540 (1980); Tenney Telephone Co.v. United States, 82 F. 2d 788 (7th Cir. 1936). The point we make is that the failure to record the purported Northland-NVST land contract, in which according to peti......
  • Primary Road No. Iowa 141, In re
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • October 15, 1963
    ...is not required to prove merchantable title. See also as supporting the conclusion reached in this division Tenney Telephone Co. v. United States, 7th Cir., Wis., 82 F.2d 788, 790; City of Chicago v. Pridmore, supra, 12 Ill.2d 447, 147 N.E.2d 54, 57; Ketchum Coal Co. v. District Court, 48 U......
  • United States v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • March 15, 1945
    ...of an easement in a suit condemning the fee in United States v. Sunset Cemetery Co., 7 Cir., 132 F.2d 163, 167. Cf. Tenney Tel. Co. v. United States, 7 Cir., 82 F.2d 788. It is obvious that none of these cases would have wasted effort in holding the property in a franchise to be property "t......
  • United States v. Welte, C2-81-49.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota
    • March 1, 1982
    ...110 F.2d 586, 589 (5th Cir.1940) (an easement is property which, when taken, must be compensated); Tenney Telephone Company v. United States, 82 F.2d 788 (7th Cir.1936) (per curiam) (easement is private property). See also 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses § 2 at 418 (1966) ("An easement ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT