Legal Opinion

Minto v. Salem Water, Light & Power Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 2, 1926PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BELT, J. —

The trial court properly sustained objection to parol evidence offered to show what the grantors of the easement intended to convey. The language of this instrument is clear and unambiguous. It clearly and definitely defines the rights of the water company in its use of the premises, and so must it be bound unless, subsequent to the execution thereof, additional rights have been acquired or plaintiff has become estopped from asserting his rights. The determination of the extent and nature of an easement by deed depends upon proper construction of the language of the instrument,…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Sammons v. . City of GloversvilleNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
  2. State v. HammelsyOregon Supreme Court · 1908
  3. American Bank Note Co. v. New York Elevated RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
  4. Frost v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Hume v. Rogue River Packing Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1907

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. City of Pasadena v. California-Michigan Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1941
  2. York Et Ux v. StallingsOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Tipperman v. TsiatsosOregon Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Loosli v. HesemanIdaho Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Segelke v. AtkinsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1960

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API