Henley v. Continental Cablevision case brief

Henley v. Continental Cablevision of St. Louis County, Inc. case brief summary
692 S.W.2d 825 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Appellant subdivision trustees sought review of a decision of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County (Missouri), which dismissed appellant's petition for failure to state a claim in an action against respondent cable company. Appellant had filed the action to enjoin respondent's alleged trespass of appellant's property, to compel the removal of respondent's wires and cables from the subdivision, and to obtain monetary relief.

CASE FACTS
The predecessors of appellant subdivision trustees had the right, pursuant to an indenture, to grant easements to other parties for the purpose of creating and maintaining electric, telephone, and telegraphic services. Appellant's predecessors had granted two such easements to two utility companies. Respondent cable company exercised licenses acquired from both utilities to enter upon their easements and erected cables, wires, and conduits. Appellant then filed an action in the lower court to enjoin respondent's alleged trespass of appellant's property, to compel the removal of respondent's wires and cables from the subdivision, and to obtain monetary relief. The lower court dismissed appellant's petition for failure to state a claim. 

DISCUSSION

• The court affirmed the lower court's judgment. 
• The court held that the easements granted to the utility companies were exclusive, and therefore apportionable by the utilities to respondent; and that the addition of single coaxial cables to the subdivision's existing telephone poles did not increase the burden on the servient tenement beyond the scope of the easements' intended and authorized use.

CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of appellant subdivision trustees' petition for failure to state a claim in an action against respondent cable company related to respondent's alleged trespass of appellant's property. The court held in part that as the easements that were granted to certain utility companies by appellant's predecessors were exclusive, they were therefore apportionable by the utility companies to respondent.
 
NOTES
P granted telephone company the right to construct and maintain telephone and electrical systems that D licensed in order to install cable services. P sought additional payment.

1. Rule: Easements in gross are freely transferable.
2. Policy: most easements in gross for utilities, if had to bargain with each home owner would be unable to function.
3. Ct also looks to changing circumstances, although agreement did not specify cable, it did reference other sources of “communication.” Also intent of the parties—homeowners wanted utilities.