West River Power Company v. Fred And Louise Bussino
| Decision Date | 06 February 1940 |
| Citation | 11 A.2d 263,111 Vt. 137 |
| Parties | WEST RIVER POWER COMPANY v. FRED AND LOUISE BUSSINO |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
January Term, 1940.
Acquiescence and Waiver.---1. No Acquiescence by Silence.---2. No Duty to Complain to One Who Knowingly Commits Wrong.---3. Equitable Estoppel Requires Prejudice.---4. Equitable Estoppel Requires Claim that Misled.---5. Waiver Defined.---6. One Claiming Waiver Must Prove It.---7. Receipt of Electric Service Not Acquiescence to Trespass.
1. Acquiescence in the construction and maintenance of a power line across the plaintiffs' premises can not be found in their failure to object to the construction or maintenance thereof for eleven years.
2. Construction by a power company of a transmission line across farmers' premises with knowledge that it had no permission so to do does not create a duty on the part of the landowners to warn the company and they are not prejudiced by failure so to do.
3. Equitable estoppel requires that one who claims it must show he has been misled and thereby prejudiced by the conduct of the other party.
4. In the absence of a claim that one has been misled by another's conduct, there can be no equitable estoppel.
5. A waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right.
6. One who claims an implied waiver has the duty of establishing it by showing some act or conduct on the other's part which is unequivocal in character.
7. That land owners sought and received electrical service from a transmission line constructed across their premises without their permission does not, under the circumstances, show an unequivocal act indicating an intention on their part to forego any rights they may have in relation to the construction and erection of a transmission line.
BILL IN EQUITY to determine right to maintain power line across defendants' land brought pending a trespass suit by defendants against plaintiff. Heard at March Term, 1939, by Rutland County Court of Chancery, Adams, Chancellor. Findings of fact were made, decree dismissed the bill, exceptions to plaintiff. The opinion states the case.
Decree affirmed with costs to defendants.
Jack Crowley and Edwin W. Lawrence for the plaintiff.
Asa S. Bloomer for the defendants.
Present MOULTON, C. J., SHERBURNE, BUTTLES, STURTEVANT and JEFFORDS JJ.
This is a suit in equity in which plaintiff seeks a decree establishing that its right to construct and maintain its line of poles and wires across defendants' farm is that of a licensee, without compensation, and that such license is irrevocable during the life of said line and for such other and further relief as is just and equitable. Decree was entered dismissing the bill and the case is here upon plaintiff's exceptions.
The record shows the following material facts:
Plaintiff is a public service corporation organized in 1919 or 1920 operates an electric power system and serves the towns of Shrewsbury, Mt. Holly, and a part of Wallingford. Defendants are husband and wife and as such own a small farm in Mt Holly. In connection with its business, plaintiff has a power line leading from a sub-station at Mt. Holly across defendants' farm to Hortonville. This branch was laid out in October, 1919, locating twenty poles on defendants' farm and was completed by plaintiff in August, 1920, since which time it has been in continuous operation, serving about fourteen customers. At the time of this construction work upon defendants' farm Fred Bussino was not at home but Mrs. Bussino was there and knew about this matter. Defendants are the first customers to receive service after leaving the said sub-station.
At some time after August, 1920, defendants applied for electrical service at their house. Plaintiff promptly made necessary installations which included placing a transformer and setting one pole. Since this was done defendants have continued to receive electrical service from said distribution system and have been regular customers of plaintiff.
Defendants made their first objection to this line crossing their farm...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Estate of Harris R. Watkins, Dcd., Howard Natl. Bank & Trust Co.
... ... WATKINS, Dcd., HOWARD NATL. BANK & TRUST COMPANY, APPELLANT Supreme Court of Vermont February 2, ... an executor the Probate Court has no power of ... choice, as the office is held by virtue ... Rand , ... 90 Vt. 223, 229, 97 A. 989; West River Power Co. v ... Bussino , 111 Vt. 137, ... ...
-
Pieciak v. Crowe LLP
... ... as Liquidator of Global Hawk Insurance Company Risk Retention Group, Plaintiff, v. CROWE ... West River Power Co. v. Bussino, 111 Vt. 137, 139, ... ...
-
Joseph M. Albertson, Assignee v. Bray Wood Heel Company, Inc
... ... Farmers Coop ... Fire Ins. Co., supra; West River Power ... Co. v. Bussino, 111 Vt. 137, ... ...
-
Anderson v. Co-Op. Ins. Companies
...plaintiff must show "some act or conduct on the part of defendant[] that was unequivocal in character." West River Power Co. v. Bussino, 111 Vt. 137, 139, 11 A.2d 263, 264 (1940). As other jurisdictions have recognized, implied waiver blurs the line between the doctrines of waiver and estop......