Van Sandt v. Royster
Decision Date | 05 November 1938 |
Docket Number | 33908. |
Parties | VAN SANDT v. ROYSTER et al. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
An "easement" is an interest which a person has in land in possession of another, and therefore an owner cannot have an easement in his own land.
Where an owner uses one part of his land for benefit of another part, condition created is spoken of as a "quasi easement," the land benefited being referred to as the "quasi dominant tenement" and part utilized for benefit of benefited land being referred to as the "quasi servient tenement."
Where grantor of three lots had run a sewer pipe from her home on lot farthest from street through other lots to connect with public sewer in street, and had thereafter conveyed corner lot to a person who erected house thereon connected with sewer pipe, which was entirely underground and of which plaintiff, who subsequently obtained title to corner lot, had no notice except through existence of plumbing in house there was an implied reservation of an easement, which was an "apparent easement," over lot of plaintiff.
A grantor owned three lots, lying east of Highland Avenue and south of Tenth street, numbered respectively 19, 20 and 4. From her home on lot 4 on the east, she ran a sewer pipe through lots 20 and 19 and connected it with a public sewer in Highland Avenue on the west of lot 19. About the same time or shortly thereafter the grantor conveyed lot 19 (the corner lot) to a person who erected a house thereon and connected with the sewer pipe. By mesne conveyances the title to lot 19 passed to the plaintiff. The sewer pipe was entirely underground, and the plaintiff had no knowledge or notice of the sewer pipe except the plumbing in the house. Held, there was an implied reservation of an easement over the lot of the plaintiff.
Appeal from District Court, Neosho County; J. T. Cooper, Judge.
Action by James W. Van Sandt against Louise H. Royster and others to enjoin the defendants from using and maintaining an underground lateral sewer drain across plaintiff's land. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Guy Lamer and DeWitt M. Stiles, both of Iola, for appellant.
T. R Evans, B. M. Dunham, and James A. Allen, all of Chanute, for appellees.
The action was brought to enjoin defendants from using and maintaining an underground lateral sewer drain through and across plaintiff's land. The case was tried by the court judgment was rendered in favor of defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
In the city of Chanute, Highland avenue running north and south intersects Tenth street running east and west. In the early part of 1904 Laura A. J. Bailey was the owner of a plot of ground lying east of Highland avenue and south of Tenth street. Running east from Highland avenue and facing north on Tenth street the lots are numbered, respectively, 19, 20 and 4. In 1904 the residence of Mrs. Bailey was on lot 4 on the east part of her land.
In the latter part of 1903, or the early part of 1904, the city of Chanute constructed a public sewer in Highland avenue, west of lot 19. About the same time a private lateral drain was constructed from the Bailey residence on lot 4 running in a westerly direction through and across lots 20 and 19 to the public sewer.
On January 15, 1904, Laura A. J. Bailey conveyed lot 19 to John J. Jones, by general warranty deed with usual covenants against encumbrances, and containing no exceptions or reservations. Jones erected a dwelling on the north part of the lot. In 1920 Jones conveyed the north 156 feet of lot 19 to Carl D. Reynolds; in 1924 Reynolds conveyed to the plaintiff, who has owned and occupied the premises since that time.
In 1904 Laura A. J. Bailey conveyed lot 20 to one Murphy, who built a house thereon and by mesne conveyances the title passed to the defendant Louise Royster. The deed to Murphy was a general warranty deed without exceptions or reservations. The defendant Gray has succeeded to the title to lot 4 upon which the old Bailey home stood at the time Laura A. J. Bailey sold lots 19 and 20.
In March, 1936, plaintiff discovered his basement flooded with sewage and filth to a depth of six or eight inches, and upon investigation he found for the first time that there existed on and across his property a sewer drain extending in an easterly direction across the property of Royster to the property of Gray. The refusal of defendants to cease draining and discharging their sewage across plaintiff's land resulted in this lawsuit.
The trial court returned findings of fact, from which we quote:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Barker
...is because as a general rule a landowner does not need a license or permission to use his or her own property. See Van Sandt v. Royster, 148 Kan. 495, 499, 83 P.2d 698 (1938) (stating that a landowner cannot have an easement in his own land). Accordingly, in such instances, an easement or p......
-
Stroda v. Joice Holdings
...Railway Co., 81 Kan. 816, 106 P. 1045 (1910). Wisely, Joice relies primarily upon an implied easement case in Kansas: Van Sandt v. Royster, 148 Kan. 495, 83 P.2d 698 (1938). There, Van Sandt sued his neighbor because their common underground sewer line kept spilling onto Van Sandt's propert......
-
Dale v. Bedal
...v. Aaron, 102 Md. 156, 167, 168, 62 A. 523. Compare Wiesel v. Smira, 49 R.I. 246, 251, 142 A. 148, 58 A.L.R. 818;Van Sandt v. Royster, 148 Kan. 495, 501, 83 P.2d 698. See collection of cases in 58 A.L.R. at page 832. In the instance of the ordinary way by necessity this condition is, of cou......
-
Linville v. Nance Development Co.
...encumbrance, citing Ireton v. Thomas, 84 Kan. 70, 113 P. 306, 32 L.R.A., N.S., 737. Appellant also cites and quotes from Van Sandt v. Royster, 148 Kan. 495, 83 P.2d 698, and Miller-Carey Drilling Co. v. Shaffer, 144 Kan. 508, 61 P.2d 1320, in support of the contention. Appellant also conten......
-
The Writing's on the Wall: The Intent Requirement in Louisiana Destination Law
...sources in the original French. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are by the author. 1. See, e.g. , Van Sandt v. Royster, 83 P.2d 698 (Kan. 1938) (reasoning that an easement by implication by prior use is difficult to justify when the implied benefit is being claimed by the grant......