Legal Opinion · Dissent

Steele v. Pfeifer

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided October 7, 1981No. 13202Published

1DissentMorgan, Justice

I dissent.

I agree that the documents are to be read as one, but I disagree on the result.

I am convinced that a fair reading of the easement, including the terms of the agreement, in the light of the circumstances under which they were drafted and executed, indicates an intent to limit the easement for the use of and access to the water.

In pertinent part, SDCL 43-13-5 provides, “The extent of a servitude is determined by the terms of the grant[.]” An easement like any other estate in land may be a base, qualified or determinable fee; i. e., an estate which may last forever, but which may end…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Eastman v. PiperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
  2. Flynn v. Michigan-Wisconsin Pipeline CompanySupreme Court of Iowa · 1968
  3. Black Hills Power & Light Company v. SchuftSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1972

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API