Pl Arg House of Studies, Easement serves 10-acre, but not
The completion of the House of Studies building was the
catalyst which gave
rise to this suit.
Pl Arg Easement was extended by Dfs
Plaintiff's complaint alleges that upon the completion of this
building located partly on the 10-acre tract and partly on the
40-acre tract, the easement granted for the benefit of the
10-acre tract was (1) extended by
the defendant to the 40-acre tract;
that the entire installation (all of the buildings) of defendant
on the two tracts are (2) operated
as a composite unit and
(3) cannot be segregated as to that use pertaining to
the 40 and that use pertaining to the 10-acre tracts; and that
defendant's use of the easement previously granted therefore,
should be (4) enjoined by reason of
its extension to the 40-acre tract.
Df Arg 40 Acre Conveyance Created an Implied Easement
The conveyance of the 40-acre tract to it in 1957 created an
implied easement benefiting [the 40-acre tract] over the route
previously granted by the express easement.
[The Df - answer] also denied that the use to which the 40-acre
tract was put justified enjoining the use of the express
easement appurtenant to the 10-acre tract.
No Implied Easement, Use Cannot be Segregated, Abandoned &
No implied easement
upon conveyance of the 40-acre tract to the defendant;
The defendant's use of the 10 and 40-acre tracts
cannot be segregated; and
Express easement appurtenant to the 10-acre tract was thus
abandoned and suspended by
operation of law.
Enjoined any further use
The trial court enjoined any further
use of Hawthorne Lane by the defendant
until such time as the
defendant's installation on the 10 and the 40-acre tracts
shall be so altered or changed as to
permit the use of Hawthorne Lane for the benefit of
the 10-acre tract only, and not for the benefit of the 40-acre
Pl - Obtained Injunction
Obtained an injunction preventing the continued use of the
express easement appurtenant to the 10-acre tract by
reason of its use for the benefit of
the nondominant 40-acre tract.
Df Arg Not every extension is a misuse
Not every extension of the use of an easement to an additional
tract is a nuisance; and
Df Arg Misuse is only where extension materially changes
Only where the extension materially changes the burden on the
servient estate, either as to the type of use or the amount,
that there is a misuse.
That is not the law
We do not understand that to be the law.
Extension is a misuse
If an easement is appurtenant to one tract of land, any
extension thereof to another tract of land is a misuse.
Was Injunction Proper? (See Issue Section)
Dfs Arg Impossible to distinguish between authorized and
In injunction was proper or that the
easement was extinguished
if it was impossible to sever
or distinguish between the authorized and unauthorized use of
the servient tenement.
The majority of these cases pertained to the
construction of a single,
inseparable building, partly
on the dominant and partly on
the nondominant estate.
The authorized and unauthorized use made of a roadway or
easement for access to such building
was quite understandably held to be
No factual justification that use cannot be segregated
The chapel, mansion, and gardens on the 10-acre tract is
separated and district from the House of Studies.
There is no factual justification for the finding that the
ENTIRE installation of the House of Studies cannot be
Court Pl had knowledge and control
The Pl was the one who conveyed the 40 tract to the Df.
The Pl had knowledge that the 40 acre tract was going to be used
for other purposes than just a road.
The Df did not want to give up their Hawthorn easement.
The Pl had command and control over the extension of the
easement (as in he could have put something into the conveyance)
Vehicular Traffic before conveyance
Before the conveyance there was 40 to 50 cars per day.
Seeking injunction after Df efforts
After construction of Loretto Lane.
After erection of the House of Studies.
After concerted efforts to direct traffic.
After reducing traffic to 4 to 5 cars a day.
Technical, but Trivial misuse of easement
While the erection of the House of Studies building on part of
the 40-acre tract results in a
technical misuse of the easement granted appurtenant
to the 10-acre tract, such
trivial and inconsequential misuse neither justifies the
issuance of an injunction restraining defendant's
right to use the easement expressly granted, nor warrants the
authorization granted to plaintiff to close Hawthorne Lane as a
means of access to defendant's property.
court of chancery will not require the doing or prohibition of
an act where the benefit to be obtained does not warrant the
Unconscionable to Enjoin
Under the facts of this case, it would be unconscionable to
enjoin the use of the easement granted to defendant in 1946.
Reversed and Remanded