Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendanteasement
plaintiffdefendantliabilityequityappealleaseeasement

Related Cases

Lakehead Pipe Line Co. v. Dehn, 340 Mich. 25, 64 N.W.2d 903
View Case »
Lingsch v. Savage, 213 Cal.App.2d 729, 29 Cal.Rptr. 201, 8 A.L.R.3d 537
View Case »
Whistler v. Hyder, 129 Or.App. 344, 879 P.2d 214
View Case »
National Football League v. Alley, Inc., 624 F.Supp. 6
View Case »
Hannan v. Dusch, 154 Va. 356, 153 S.E. 824, 70 A.L.R. 141
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Miller v. Clary, 210 N.Y. 127, 103 N.E. 1114

Facts

In 1872, the Phoenix Mills owned land on the Seneca River and conveyed an easterly lot to Zalinski, including a provision for power transmission from a wheel in the mill. Subsequent conveyances included similar provisions, but by 1890, no power had been transmitted to any of the lots, and the necessary equipment had been destroyed. The plaintiff, owner of the lots, sought to enforce the covenants requiring the defendants to maintain the power transmission system, which had been conveyed with the mill property to the defendants Clary.

There is now upon the mill property an electric power plant operated by the defendant the Geneva-Seneca Electric Company under lease from the owners.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the covenant requiring the construction and maintenance of a shaft for power transmission ran with the land and could be enforced against the subsequent owners of the servient estate.

The question arises on the subsequent covenant to transmit the power, contained in the following provision: ‘Said party of the first part shall keep said wheel in said mill in good condition and operate the same economically and construct and maintain said shaft of proper dimensions to the west line of said lot, affording said party of the second part a good connection therewith at his west line.’

Rule

The court applied the rule that affirmative covenants do not run with the land and cannot be enforced against subsequent owners, except in certain limited circumstances.

It is the established rule in England that such a covenant does not run with the land, and cannot be enforced against a subsequent owner of the servient estate, either at law or in equity.

Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of the covenant in question, determining that it was an affirmative covenant compelling action rather than a restriction on property use. It noted that while the plaintiff had an easement to take power from the defendants' mill, the obligation to construct and maintain the shaft was a personal undertaking of the original grantor and did not create an enforceable obligation on the part of the defendants.

The plaintiff here has the right, under the grant of the Phoenix Mills, to take power from a wheel in the defendants' power plant when the wheel is in operation. That is an easement, and is a privilege necessary and convenient to the complete enjoyment of the plaintiff's property, having in mind the purpose for which it was conveyed. But it is not necessary, or even convenient, to the complete enjoyment of the plaintiff's property that the defendants should construct and maintain the shaft by which the power is transmitted.

Conclusion

The court modified the judgment to remove the requirement for the defendants to construct and maintain the shaft, allowing the plaintiff to take power from the defendants' mill when operational instead.

I recommend that the judgment appealed from be modified by striking out the provision that the covenants in the deeds from the Phoenix Mills to Zalinski and others to construct and maintain a shaft from the wheels in the defendants' mill to the plaintiff's building inured to the plaintiff's benefit, and also by striking out the provision that the defendants comply with such covenant.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the defendants, as the court ruled that the covenant to maintain the shaft did not run with the land and was not enforceable against them.

The court found that the covenant to construct and maintain the shaft was the personal undertaking of the original grantor, and does not run with the land or create an equitable liability on the part of the defendants.

You must be