Scherger v. Northern Natural Gas Co.

575 N.W.2d 578 (1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D is engaged in the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce through a pipeline system it owns, operates, and maintains. P is the owner of farm property where in 1931, P's predecessors in title granted an easement in favor of D. The agreement granting the easement gave D a 'blanket' easement over and through a portion of the property 'together with the right of ingress to and egress from said premises, for the purpose of constructing, inspecting, repairing, maintaining and replacing the property of the grantee located thereon, or the removal thereof, in whole or in part, at the will of the grantee.' ' The easement agreement provides for the payment of 'the sum of Fifty Cents (50 [cent] ) per lineal rod * * * which is to be paid when and as the location of pipelines over and through the lands hereinafter described shall be established, surveyed and measured * * * .' D constructed a natural gas pipeline through the property, which it has operated and maintained since 1932. D informed P that it intended to 'replace' the pipeline and tendered a check for $905 as compensation for installing the replacement pipeline. The replacement pipeline was to run alongside the original pipeline, 50 feet away at its closest point and 300 feet at its most distant. As per Minn. Stat. § 300.045 (1996), P demanded 'a definite and specific description of the present gas pipeline easement on their property.' P demanded that a new easement agreement be negotiated and that if negotiations were unsuccessful, 'then D should use its eminent domain powers' to acquire a new easement. D was willing to define the 'present pipeline easement' across the property when construction of the replacement pipeline was completed. D claimed that the original easement agreement gave it the right to put the replacement pipeline anywhere on the property within the boundaries of the original easement grant. P petitioned for a writ of mandamus to require D to initiate condemnation proceedings. The district court found for D holding that 'there is no ambiguity in the terms of the easement, and that the easement grants D the right to replace the pipeline.' The court of appeals reversed. It remanded for a determination of whether or not D's replacement pipeline was 'within the 'line of reasonable enjoyment' of the original easement * * * or within 'the minimum necessary for the safe conduct of D’s business'' D appealed.