Geffine v. Thompson
76 Ohio App. 64, 43 Ohio Law. Abs. 400, 62 N.E.2d 590 (1945)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A commercial easement in gross, such as a right-of-way for a gas pipeline, is assignable, particularly when the language of the original grant indicates an intent for assignability (e.g., by including "successors and assigns").
Facts:
- In 1918, the plaintiff's predecessor in title granted The East Ohio Gas Company, its successors and assigns, a right-of-way to lay, maintain, operate, and remove a gas pipeline across a parcel of land.
- The East Ohio Gas Company constructed the pipeline on the land as part of a larger network to transport gas from local wells.
- In 1928, The East Ohio Gas Company sold and assigned its interest in the pipeline to J. C. Arthurs & Company.
- In 1935, J. C. Arthurs & Company sold and assigned its interest in the pipeline to the defendant.
- The plaintiff purchased the land in 1925.
- The defendant currently uses the pipeline to transport gas from two nearby wells to 27 local customers for heating and cooking.
- In 1942, the plaintiff objected for the first time to the maintenance and operation of the pipeline on her land.
- The portion of the land where the pipeline is located is not actively used by the plaintiff.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff landowner filed an ejectment action against the defendant pipeline owner in the Court of Common Pleas (trial court).
- The defendant filed a cross-petition seeking to quiet his title to the pipeline right-of-way.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on both the petition and the cross-petition.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a commercial easement in gross for a gas pipeline assignable to a third party when the original grant was made to the grantee and its 'successors and assigns'?
Opinions:
Majority - Morgan, J.
Yes, a commercial easement in gross for a gas pipeline is assignable. The court held that the right to construct and operate a pipeline for transporting gas is a commercial easement in gross, analogous to a railroad right-of-way, not a purely personal right. The explicit language in the original grant to The East Ohio Gas Company and its 'successors and assigns' clearly demonstrates the parties' intent that the easement be assignable. The court distinguished this case from Boatman v. Lasley, which held that a mere personal right to pass over land is not assignable, by reasoning that a pipeline, like a railroad, is 'sui generis' (of its own kind) and its commercial nature makes it alienable. The court based its reversal primarily on the authority of Junction Railroad Co. v. Ruggles, which established the assignability of railroad rights-of-way.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction in Ohio law between non-assignable personal easements in gross and assignable commercial easements in gross. By analogizing a gas pipeline to a railroad, the court affirmed that rights-of-way for utilities and other commercial infrastructure are alienable property interests. This precedent provides crucial legal stability for industries that rely on easements for transportation and distribution, ensuring that these essential infrastructure assets can be transferred as part of business transactions without being extinguished by the common law rule against assigning personal easements.
