Zimmerman, Michael E.

English

University of Montana

Public Land & Resources Law Review Volume 1 Article 7 June 1980 Was an Easement by Necessity Impliedly Reserved in the Checkerboard Land Grants: Leo Sheep Company v. United States Michael E. Zimmerman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/plrlr  Part of the Law Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits you. Recommended Citation 1 Pub. Land L. Rev. 112 (1980) This Case Notes is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Public Land & Resources Law Review by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact scholarworks@mso.umt.edu. WAS AN EASEMENT BY NECESSITY IMPLIEDLYRESERVED IN THE CHECKERBOARD LANDGRANTS?: LEO SHEEP COMPANY V. UNITEDSTATES'INTRODUCTIONIn 1862 the United States Government, to subsidize and promotethe construction of a transcontinental railroad, granted large portionsof the public domain to the Union Pacific Railroad.2 The odd-num-bered sections were granted to the railroad while the even-numberedsections were reserved. The government, however, did not reserve aright of way across the granted lots to provide access to the retainedlots. This omission resulted in litigation between successors to the rail-road's lands and persons who desired to use the public lands.In the years immediately following the grants there was little con-flict. When it did occur it usually resulted from attempts to trail stockacross private land to pasture on public land.3 Today the public land issubject to recreational uses and demands unimagined at the time of thecheckerboard land grants.' Hunters, fishermen, snowmobilers, andbackpackers all want access to public land which is often completelysurrounded by private land. Though the question of access to theselands is mundane,5 its answer threatened a substantial impact on prop-erty rights in millions of acies of land in the Western United States.'In Carbon County, Wyoming, some of the Union Pacific Railroadland passed to the Leo Sheep Company. The Seminoe Reservoir, usedby the public for hunting and fishing, is situated to the west and southof these specific sections and cannot be reached without crossing pri-vate land. Controversy began when Bureau of Land Management offi-cials received complaints that Leo Sheep Company and other private1. Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, 440 U.S. 668 (1979).2. Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 120, 12 Stat. 489, 492(3) and (4), as amended Act of July 2,1864, ch. 216, 13 Stat. 356, 358(4).3. See, e.g., Herrin v. Sieben, 46 Mont. 226, 127 P. 323 (1912); Mackay v. Uinta De-velopment Co., 219 F. 116 (8th Cir. 1914); Jastro v. Francis, 24 N.M. 137, 172 P. 1139 (1918);Western Wyoming Land & Livestock Co. v. Bagley, 279 F. 632 (8th Cir. 1922).4. Gould, Access to Public Lands Across Intervening Private Lands, 8 LAND & WATERL. REv. 149 (1973) discusses the impact of recreational demands on the public land andraises the question of access. In 1976 the Montana Legislative Subcommittee on Agricul-tural Lands concluded that access problems were being caused by increasing recreationaldemands and that "blocks of public land once available are now closed due to lack of legalaccess." MONTANA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS: INTERIMSTUDY, 1 (1976). See also PUBLIC LAND LAW COMMISSION: ONE THIRD OF THE NATION'SLAND, A REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND TO THE CONGRESS (1970) which catalogs theextensive uses, recreational and non-recreational, of the public land.5. Leo Sheep Co., 440 U.S. at 669.6. Id. at 678.EASEMENTS BY NECESSITYlandowners were either denying access or were charging a fee to crosstheir land. After attempts to negotiate failed, the B.L.M. cleared a roadacross Leo Sheep Company land and posted signs inviting the public touse it for access to the reservoir.Leo Sheep Company, pursuant to provisions of the Quiet TitleAct,7 sued for declaratory and injunctive relief. The United States Dis-trict Court, District of Wyoming, upheld the Company's claim that theUnited States had, in clearing the access road, unlawfully entered theirland. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed 8 and theUnited States Supreme Court granted certiorari to the question"[w]hether the government has an implied easement to build a roadacross land that was originally granted to the Union Pacific Railroad",9Before the Supreme Court, the United States argued that settledprinciples governing implied easements and easements by necessitywere available to support a finding that easements permitting access tothe public land were reserved by the Union Pacific Act.' In holdingthat the United States does not have an implied easement that wouldpermit uncompensated use of a right of way across Leo Sheep Com-pany land, the Supreme Court resolutely rejected this argument."This note will briefly examine the Court's ruling that the commonlaw doctrine of easements by necessity is unavailable to support theposition urged by the United States.DIscusSIONThe doctrine of easements by necessity is straightforward and wellsettled. It applies "where the grantor retains an adjoining parcel whichhe can reach only through the lands conveyed to the grantee."' 2 Twotheories back the doctrine. One states that the easement results fromthe operation of law to further public policy by making the retainedland usable. The other finds the easement in implications made fromthe terms and conditions of the grant.' 3 Regardless of the underlyingtheory, authorities have noted thatwhether easements by necessity are believed to be products ofpublic policy or to be embodiments of inferences as to theintent of the parties, they should be establishable by proofthat they are necessary to the reasonable utilization of the7. 28 U.S.C. § 2409a (1976).8. Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, 570 F.2d 881 (10th Cir. 1978).9. Leo Sheep Co., 440 U.S. at 669.10. Id. at 679.11. Id. at 681,682.12. Hollywyle Ass'n v. Hollister, 164 Conn. 389, 398, 324 A.2d 247, 252 (1973).13. 3 R. POWELL, THE LAW OF REAL PROPERTY para. 410 (1979).1980]PUBLIC LAND LAW REVIEWclaiming dominant parcel. Only so can the public interest inland utilization be safeguarded. Only so can the probable in-tent of the parties be effectuated.14As the Court recognized in Leo Sheep Company, the determinativequestion is whether the claimed access is necessary to the reasonableutilization of the retained public land.Two decisions by the Montana Supreme Court, one overruling theother, are examples of the opposite sides of this issue. For the purposeof this note, Herrin v. Sieben"5 and Simonson v. McDonald16 are illus-trative.In Herrin v. Sieben the plaintiff acquired checkerboard lands thathad been granted to the Northern Pacific Railroad. The defendanttrailed sheep across these sections to reach pasture on public lands.The plaintiff, suing for damages caused by the trespass, questioned theextent to which the public may use private land for access to publicland. 17The Montana court recognized the common law rule that where a"grantor has no means of access to other lands owned by him except bypassing over the lands granted, a way of necessity is impliedly reservedin his grant."'" In 1912, the Montana court did not distinguish a grantof land by the government from a grant by a private party. Since ac-cess to the public lands was impossible without crossing some part ofthe odd-numbered sections, an easement by necessity was reserved bythe United States.This easement operated not only in favor of the United States, butin favor of citizens who wanted to enter the public land for settlement,timber development, mineral exploration, and grazing. Any contraryview, in the words of the court, would grant to the railroad "amonoploy of all the public lands within the limits of the grant. ... 19At first glance this view seems reasonable, and ignoring the impactof a decision like Herrin on long established property rights, the logic isappealing. The public lands in the checkerboard scheme are, after all,completely surrounded by private land, and the private landowner mayeasily deny the public access. The same argument was made by theUnited States in Leo Sheep Company.Other courts, like the Supreme Court in Leo Sheep Company, havedisagreed with the reasoning in cases like Herrin. For example, a 192714. Id. See also Simonton, Ways By Necessity, 25 COLUM. L. REv. 471, 579-580(1925).15. 46 Mont. at 226, 127 P. at 323.16. 131 Mont. 494, 311 P.2d 982 (1957).17. Herrin, 46 Mont. at 231, 127 P. at 326.18. Id. at 234, 127 P. at 328.19. Id. at 235, 127 P. at 328.[Vol. I0 ESEMENTS BY NECESSITYTexas decision, State v. Black Brothers,2° declared that the doctrine ofnecessity does not apply to government grantors in the same mannerthat it applies to private grantors.In Black Brothers, the State of Texas sued for and obtained aneasement across land owned by the defendant, a private individual. Onappeal, the Texas Supreme Court refused to find an easement based onnecessity.21 Recognizing its previous holding that an implied reserva-tion may be found where a grantor has no access to retained lands, thecourt stated that the application of this rule was limited to situations"where the grantor was another than the sovereign."' 22 The Texascourt, furthermore, had alwaysstrongly emphasized that strict necessity is the basis for anysuch right as that here asserted. The same necessity does notexist in the case of the sovereign as in the case of the individ-ual landowner. As long as title remains in the state. . . therecan be no doubt that the state, in the exercise of the power ofeminent domain.., can obtain any and all reasonable rightsof way.23In Black Brothers, the power of eminent domain disproved the strictnecessity upon which the easement by necessity was deemed to begrounded.Various cases have stated two degrees of necessity that will sup-port the implication of an easement by necessity. One view requiresabsolute or strict necessity,24 while the second view permits the ease-ment upon a showing of reasonable necessity.25 Regardless of the de-gree of necessity required, however, the availability of the power ofeminent domain eliminates the need to derogate the deed by implyingthe reservation of an easement.In 1957, the Montana Supreme Court came to agree with BlackBrothers and overruled Herrin. For the court in Simonson v. McDon-ald, a conveyance of land was a solemn and deliberate transactionwhich should not be enlarged by implication.26 Again, it was statedthat the power of condemnation served to "'negative the strict neces-sity on which the implication of the reservation of the right of way...20. 116 Tex. 615, 297 S.W. 213 (1927). See also United States v. Rindge, 208 F. 611,619 (S.D. Cal. 1913).21. Black Bros., 116 Tex. at 624, 297 S.W. at 216.22. Id. at 626, 627, 297 S.W. at 217, 218.23. Id. at 629, 297 S.W. at 218.24. See, e.g., Krippv. Curtis, 71 Cal. 62,65, 11 P. 879, 880 (1886); Black Bros., 116 Tex.at 629, 297 S.W. at 218; Mackie v. United States, 194 F. Supp. 306, 308 (D. Minn. 1961);Rindge, 208 F. at 620.25. See, e.g., Adams v. Cullen, 44 Wash. 2d 502, 507, 268 P.2d 451, 454 (1954); Hol-lywyle Ass'n., 164 Conn. at 399, 324 A.2d at 252.26. 131 Mont. at 497, 311 P.2d at 984.19801PUBLIC LAND LAW REVIEW1must be grounded.' "27The Supreme Court in Leo Sheep Company, like the Montana andTexas courts, recognized the common law rule that a grantor conveyinga portion of his lands while retaining the remainder reserves the pas-sage way necessary to reach the retained property.28 Like the Montanaand Texas courts, the Supreme Court believed that the existence of thepower of eminent domain meant that "the easement is not actually amatter of necessity."29This was not the only possible result. Some courts, discussinggrants from private parties, have found that the existence of a power ofcondemnation is not a sufficient reason to deny an easement by neces-sity and have refused to force private parties seeking the easement toutilize statutorily provided condemnation powers.31 It is possible theargument that an easement by necessity is a vested right existing inde-pendently of the power of condemnation, 3 1-- that the easement cameinto being at the time the servient and dominant parcels were severedby the grant3 2-- could be extended to the situation in Leo Sheep Com-pany.Despite this argument, however, it appears that the SupremeCourt properly refused to extend the doctrine of easements by necessityto grants made by the sovereign. Extending the doctrine not onlywould have had a "substantial impact. . . on property rights grantedover 100 years ago .. .-33 in over 150 million acres of land,34 butwould not have been faithful to the theory underlying the doctrine.Clearly on the facts in Leo Sheep Company the easement is not a matterof necessity because the government has the power of eminent domain.Requiring the United States to condemn the necessary rights ofway has the obvious benefit of providing compensation for the takingof private land. Condemnation, furthermore, allows creation of theeasement without derogation of the grant embodied in the 1862 UnionPacific Act. Finally, as the Court noted, not only is it possible "thatCongress gave the problem of access little thought; but it is at least aslikely that the thought focused on negotiation, reciprocity considera-27. Id. at 499, 311 P.2d at 985, quoting Black Bros., 116 Tex. at 629, 297 S.W. at 219.Thisted v. Country Club, 146 Mont. 87, 405 P.2d 432 (1965) later limited the ruling in Si-monson to the facts existing in that case.28. Leo Sheep Co., 440 U.S. at 679.29. Id. at 679, 680.30. Proudfoot v. Safle, 62 W. Va. 51, 57 S.E. 256, 257 (1907); Moore v. White, 159Mich. 460, 464, 124 N.W. 62, 64 (1909); Homer v. Heersche, 202 Kan. 250, 256, 447 P.2d811, 816 (1968).31. Moore, 159 Mich. at 464, 124 N.W. at 64.32. Homer, 202 Kan. at 257, 447 P.2d at 817.33. Leo Sheep Co., 440 U.S. at 682.34. Id. at 678.[V ol. IEASEMENTS BY NECESSITYtions, and the power of eminent domain as obvious devices for amelio-rating disputes."3 5 The Supreme Court, rightfully, was "unwilling toupset settled expectations to accomodate some ill-defined power to con-struct public thoroughfares without compensation."36CONCLUSIONIn the case of checkerboard lands reserved in the Union PacificAct, the common law doctrine of easements by necessity is unavailableto create a right of access to the public lands. Numerous other grantsreserving the even-numbered sections were made to railroads.37 Thisdecision will likely extend to those grants as the power of condemna-tion will, in each grant, contradict the necessity upon which the doc-trine of easements by necessity is bottomed. Accomodation betweendemands made for access to the public lands and the rights of landown-ers whose property must be crossed must now be made by requiring thepublic to compensate the private landowner for his lost property rights.M.E.Z.35. Id. at 681.36. Id. at 687, 688.37. See, e.g., Act of Sept. 20, 1850, ch. 61, 9 Stat. 466 (granting land to the States ofIllinois, Mississippi and Alabama, some of which eventually passed to the Illinois CentralR.R.); Act of June 10, 1852, ch. 45, 10 Stat. 8 (granting land to the State of Missouri, some ofwhich eventually passed to the Missouri Pacific, the Chicago, B & Q R.R., and the St. Louis& Santa Fe R.R.); Act of March 3, 1857, ch. 99, 11 Stat. 195 (granting land to the State ofMinnesota, some of which eventually passed to the Great Northern and Northern Pacificrailroads); and Act of July 25, 1866, ch. 242, 14 Stat. 239 (granting land to the States ofOregon and California, some of which eventually passed to the Southern Pacific Co.).19801

Was an Easement by Necessity Impliedly Reserved in the Checkerboard Land Grants: Leo Sheep Company v. United States

University of Montana School of Law

Public Land and Resources Law Review
Volume 1
Was an Easement by Necessity Impliedly Reserved
in the Checkerboard Land Grants: Leo Sheep
Company v. United States
Michael E. Zimmerman
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/plrlr
Part of the Law Commons
This Case Notes is brought to you for free and open access by The Scholarly Forum @ Montana Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Public Land
and Resources Law Review by an authorized editor of The Scholarly Forum @ Montana Law.
Recommended Citation
1 Pub. Land L. Rev. 112 (1980)
WAS AN EASEMENT BY NECESSITY IMPLIEDLY
RESERVED IN THE CHECKERBOARD LAND
GRANTS?: LEO SHEEP COMPANY V. UNITED
STATES'
INTRODUCTION
In 1862 the United States Government, to subsidize and promote
the construction of a transcontinental railroad, granted large portions
of the public domain to the Union Pacific Railroad.2 The odd-num-
bered sections were granted to the railroad while the even-numbered
sections were reserved. The government, however, did not reserve a
right of way across the granted lots to provide access to the retained
lots. This omission resulted in litigation between successors to the rail-
road's lands and persons who desired to use the public lands.
In the years immediately following the grants there was little con-
flict. When it did occur it usually resulted from attempts to trail stock
across private land to pasture on public land.3 Today the public land is
subject to recreational uses and demands unimagined at the time of the
checkerboard land grants.' Hunters, fishermen, snowmobilers, and
backpackers all want access to public land which is often completely
surrounded by private land. Though the question of access to these
lands is mundane,5 its answer threatened a substantial impact on prop-
erty rights in millions of acies of land in the Western United States.'
In Carbon County, Wyoming, some of the Union Pacific Railroad
land passed to the Leo Sheep Company. The Seminoe Reservoir, used
by the public for hunting and fishing, is situated to the west and south
of these specific sections and cannot be reached without crossing pri-
vate land. Controversy began when Bureau of Land Management offi-
cials received complaints that Leo Sheep Company and other private
1. Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, 440 U.S. 668 (1979).
2. Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 120, 12 Stat. 489, 492(3) and (4), as amended Act of July 2,
1864, ch. 216, 13 Stat. 356, 358(4).
3. See, e.g., Herrin v. Sieben, 46 Mont. 226, 127 P. 323 (1912); Mackay v. Uinta De-
velopment Co., 219 F. 116 (8th Cir. 1914); Jastro v. Francis, 24 N.M. 137, 172 P. 1139 (1918);
Western Wyoming Land & Livestock Co. v. Bagley, 279 F. 632 (8th Cir. 1922).
4. Gould, Access to Public Lands Across Intervening Private Lands, 8 LAND & WATER
L. REv. 149 (1973) discusses the impact of recreational demands on the public land and
raises the question of access. In 1976 the Montana Legislative Subcommittee on Agricul-
tural Lands concluded that access problems were being caused by increasing recreational
demands and that "blocks of public land once available are now closed due to lack of legal
access." MONTANA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS: INTERIM
STUDY, 1 (1976). See also PUBLIC LAND LAW COMMISSION: ONE THIRD OF THE NATION'S
LAND, A REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND TO THE CONGRESS (1970) which catalogs the
extensive uses, recreational and non-recreational, of the public land.
5. Leo Sheep Co., 440 U.S. at 669.
6. Id. at 678.
EASEMENTS BY NECESSITY
landowners were either denying access or were charging a fee to cross
their land. After attempts to negotiate failed, the B.L.M. cleared a road
across Leo Sheep Company land and posted signs inviting the public to
use it for access to the reservoir.
Leo Sheep Company, pursuant to provisions of the Quiet Title
Act,7 sued for declaratory and injunctive relief. The United States Dis-
trict Court, District of Wyoming, upheld the Company's claim that the
United States had, in clearing the access road, unlawfully entered their
land. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed 8 and the
United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to the question
"[w]hether the government has an implied easement to build a road
across land that was originally granted to the Union Pacific Railroad
",9
Before the Supreme Court, the United States argued that settled
principles governing implied easements and easements by necessity
were available to support a finding that easements permitting access to
the public land were reserved by the Union Pacific Act.' In holding
that the United States does not have an implied easement that would
permit uncompensated use of a right of way across Leo Sheep Com-
pany land, the Supreme Court resolutely rejected this argument."
This note will briefly examine the Court's ruling that the common
law doctrine of easements by necessity is unavailable to support the
position urged by the United States.
DIscusSION
The doctrine of easements by necessity is straightforward and well
settled. It applies "where the grantor retains an adjoining parcel which
he can reach only through the lands conveyed to the grantee."' 2 Two
theories back the doctrine. One states that the easement results from
the operation of law to further public policy by making the retained
land usable. The other finds the easement in implications made from
the terms and conditions of the grant.' 3 Regardless of the underlying
theory, authorities have noted that
whether easements by necessity are believed to be products of
public policy or to be embodiments of inferences as to the
intent of the parties, they should be establishable by proof
that they are necessary to the reasonable utilization of the
7. 28 U.S.C. § 2409a (1976).
8. Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, 570 F.2d 881 (10th Cir. 1978).
9. Leo Sheep Co., 440 U.S. at 669.
10. Id. at 679.
11. Id. at 681,682.
12. Hollywyle Ass'n v. Hollister, 164 Conn. 389, 398, 324 A.2d 247, 252 (1973).
13. 3 R. POWELL, THE LAW OF REAL PROPERTY para. 410 (1979).
1980]
PUBLIC LAND LAW REVIEW
claiming dominant parcel. Only so can the public interest in
land utilization be safeguarded. Only so can the probable in-
tent of the parties be effectuated.14
As the Court recognized in Leo Sheep Company, the determinative
question is whether the claimed access is necessary to the reasonable
utilization of the retained public land.
Two decisions by the Montana Supreme Court, one overruling the
other, are examples of the opposite sides of this issue. For the purpose
of this note, Herrin v. Sieben"5 and Simonson v. McDonald16 are illus-
trative.
In Herrin v. Sieben the plaintiff acquired checkerboard lands that
had been granted to the Northern Pacific Railroad. The defendant
trailed sheep across these sections to reach pasture on public lands.
The plaintiff, suing for damages caused by the trespass, questioned the
extent to which the public may use private land for access to public
land. 17
The Montana court recognized the common law rule that where a
"grantor has no means of access to other lands owned by him except by
passing over the lands granted, a way of necessity is impliedly reserved
in his grant."'" In 1912, the Montana court did not distinguish a grant
of land by the government from a grant by a private party. Since ac-
cess to the public lands was impossible without crossing some part of
the odd-numbered sections, an easement by necessity was reserved by
the United States.
This easement operated not only in favor of the United States, but
in favor of citizens who wanted to enter the public land for settlement,
timber development, mineral exploration, and grazing. Any contrary
view, in the words of the court, would grant to the railroad "a
monoploy of all the public lands within the limits of the grant. ... 19
At first glance this view seems reasonable, and ignoring the impact
of a decision like Herrin on long established property rights, the logic is
appealing. The public lands in the checkerboard scheme are, after all,
completely surrounded by private land, and the private landowner may
easily deny the public access. The same argument was made by the
United States in Leo Sheep Company.
Other courts, like the Supreme Court in Leo Sheep Company, have
disagreed with the reasoning in cases like Herrin. For example, a 1927
14. Id. See also Simonton, Ways By Necessity, 25 COLUM. L. REv. 471, 579-580
(1925).
15. 46 Mont. at 226, 127 P. at 323.
16. 131 Mont. 494, 311 P.2d 982 (1957).
17. Herrin, 46 Mont. at 231, 127 P. at 326.
18. Id. at 234, 127 P. at 328.
19. Id. at 235, 127 P. at 328.
[Vol. I
0 ESEMENTS BY NECESSITY
Texas decision, State v. Black Brothers,2° declared that the doctrine of
necessity does not apply to government grantors in the same manner
that it applies to private grantors.
In Black Brothers, the State of Texas sued for and obtained an
easement across land owned by the defendant, a private individual. On
appeal, the Texas Supreme Court refused to find an easement based on
necessity.21 Recognizing its previous holding that an implied reserva-
tion may be found where a grantor has no access to retained lands, the
court stated that the application of this rule was limited to situations
"where the grantor was another than the sovereign."' 22 The Texas
court, furthermore, had always
strongly emphasized that strict necessity is the basis for any
such right as that here asserted. The same necessity does not
exist in the case of the sovereign as in the case of the individ-
ual landowner. As long as title remains in the state. . . there
can be no doubt that the state, in the exercise of the power of
eminent domain.., can obtain any and all reasonable rights
of way.23
In Black Brothers, the power of eminent domain disproved the strict
necessity upon which the easement by necessity was deemed to be
grounded.
Various cases have stated two degrees of necessity that will sup-
port the implication of an easement by necessity. One view requires
absolute or strict necessity,24 while the second view permits the ease-
ment upon a showing of reasonable necessity.25 Regardless of the de-
gree of necessity required, however, the availability of the power of
eminent domain eliminates the need to derogate the deed by implying
the reservation of an easement.
In 1957, the Montana Supreme Court came to agree with Black
Brothers and overruled Herrin. For the court in Simonson v. McDon-
ald, a conveyance of land was a solemn and deliberate transaction
which should not be enlarged by implication.26 Again, it was stated
that the power of condemnation served to "'negative the strict neces-
sity on which the implication of the reservation of the right of way...
20. 116 Tex. 615, 297 S.W. 213 (1927). See also United States v. Rindge, 208 F. 611,
619 (S.D. Cal. 1913).
21. Black Bros., 116 Tex. at 624, 297 S.W. at 216.
22. Id. at 626, 627, 297 S.W. at 217, 218.
23. Id. at 629, 297 S.W. at 218.
24. See, e.g., Krippv. Curtis, 71 Cal. 62,65, 11 P. 879, 880 (1886); Black Bros., 116 Tex.
at 629, 297 S.W. at 218; Mackie v. United States, 194 F. Supp. 306, 308 (D. Minn. 1961);
Rindge, 208 F. at 620.
25. See, e.g., Adams v. Cullen, 44 Wash. 2d 502, 507, 268 P.2d 451, 454 (1954); Hol-
lywyle Ass'n., 164 Conn. at 399, 324 A.2d at 252.
26. 131 Mont. at 497, 311 P.2d at 984.
19801
PUBLIC LAND LAW REVIEW1
must be grounded.' "27
The Supreme Court in Leo Sheep Company, like the Montana and
Texas courts, recognized the common law rule that a grantor conveying
a portion of his lands while retaining the remainder reserves the pas-
sage way necessary to reach the retained property.28 Like the Montana
and Texas courts, the Supreme Court believed that the existence of the
power of eminent domain meant that "the easement is not actually a
matter of necessity."29
This was not the only possible result. Some courts, discussing
grants from private parties, have found that the existence of a power of
condemnation is not a sufficient reason to deny an easement by neces-
sity and have refused to force private parties seeking the easement to
utilize statutorily provided condemnation powers.31 It is possible the
argument that an easement by necessity is a vested right existing inde-
pendently of the power of condemnation, 3 1-- that the easement came
into being at the time the servient and dominant parcels were severed
by the grant3 2-- could be extended to the situation in Leo Sheep Com-
pany.
Despite this argument, however, it appears that the Supreme
Court properly refused to extend the doctrine of easements by necessity
to grants made by the sovereign. Extending the doctrine not only
would have had a "substantial impact. . . on property rights granted
over 100 years ago .. .-33 in over 150 million acres of land,34 but
would not have been faithful to the theory underlying the doctrine.
Clearly on the facts in Leo Sheep Company the easement is not a matter
of necessity because the government has the power of eminent domain.
Requiring the United States to condemn the necessary rights of
way has the obvious benefit of providing compensation for the taking
of private land. Condemnation, furthermore, allows creation of the
easement without derogation of the grant embodied in the 1862 Union
Pacific Act. Finally, as the Court noted, not only is it possible "that
Congress gave the problem of access little thought; but it is at least as
likely that the thought focused on negotiation, reciprocity considera-
27. Id. at 499, 311 P.2d at 985, quoting Black Bros., 116 Tex. at 629, 297 S.W. at 219.
Thisted v. Country Club, 146 Mont. 87, 405 P.2d 432 (1965) later limited the ruling in Si-
monson to the facts existing in that case.
28. Leo Sheep Co., 440 U.S. at 679.
29. Id. at 679, 680.
30. Proudfoot v. Safle, 62 W. Va. 51, 57 S.E. 256, 257 (1907); Moore v. White, 159
Mich. 460, 464, 124 N.W. 62, 64 (1909); Homer v. Heersche, 202 Kan. 250, 256, 447 P.2d
811, 816 (1968).
31. Moore, 159 Mich. at 464, 124 N.W. at 64.
32. Homer, 202 Kan. at 257, 447 P.2d at 817.
33. Leo Sheep Co., 440 U.S. at 682.
34. Id. at 678.
[V ol. I
EASEMENTS BY NECESSITY
tions, and the power of eminent domain as obvious devices for amelio-
rating disputes."3 5 The Supreme Court, rightfully, was "unwilling to
upset settled expectations to accomodate some ill-defined power to con-
struct public thoroughfares without compensation."36
CONCLUSION
In the case of checkerboard lands reserved in the Union Pacific
Act, the common law doctrine of easements by necessity is unavailable
to create a right of access to the public lands. Numerous other grants
reserving the even-numbered sections were made to railroads.37 This
decision will likely extend to those grants as the power of condemna-
tion will, in each grant, contradict the necessity upon which the doc-
trine of easements by necessity is bottomed. Accomodation between
demands made for access to the public lands and the rights of landown-
ers whose property must be crossed must now be made by requiring the
public to compensate the private landowner for his lost property rights.
M.E.Z.
35. Id. at 681.
36. Id. at 687, 688.
37. See, e.g., Act of Sept. 20, 1850, ch. 61, 9 Stat. 466 (granting land to the States of
Illinois, Mississippi and Alabama, some of which eventually passed to the Illinois Central
R.R.); Act of June 10, 1852, ch. 45, 10 Stat. 8 (granting land to the State of Missouri, some of
which eventually passed to the Missouri Pacific, the Chicago, B & Q R.R., and the St. Louis
& Santa Fe R.R.); Act of March 3, 1857, ch. 99, 11 Stat. 195 (granting land to the State of
Minnesota, some of which eventually passed to the Great Northern and Northern Pacific
railroads); and Act of July 25, 1866, ch. 242, 14 Stat. 239 (granting land to the States of
Oregon and California, some of which eventually passed to the Southern Pacific Co.).
19801



https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=plrlr

Was an Easement by Necessity Impliedly Reserved in the Checkerboard Land Grants: Leo Sheep Company v. United States

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Montana

University of Montana School of Law