Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Ark. Valley Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Brinks
Citations: 240 Ark. 381; 400 S.W.2d 278; 1966 Ark. LEXIS 1313Docket: 5-3795
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; February 28, 1966; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
The litigation concerns the location of an easement for a power transmission line across land owned by Hugh E. and Clemmie Brinks (appellees), who granted a 100-foot-wide permanent easement to the Arkansas Valley Electric Cooperative Corporation (appellant) in 1964. The easement agreement, although not signed by the appellant, included compensation terms and described the land but did not specify the right-of-way's location. Following the appellant's actions to clear the right-of-way through the middle of their property, the appellees filed a complaint, asserting an understanding that the right-of-way would be on the northern edge of their land, which they claimed was more valuable than the middle area. The trial court found that the easement center line was located 50 feet south of the appellees' northern property line. The appellant contested this finding, arguing that the evidence did not support it. However, the court referenced a precedent stating that, when an easement is granted without a defined location, the owner of the servient estate has the right to determine it, and if they fail, the grantee may select a reasonable location considering both parties' interests. The trial court concluded that placing the right-of-way on the north side was justified due to the evidence indicating greater damages to the appellees if the line ran through the middle of their land, which is more developed and valuable. The court's finding was supported by testimony from Mr. Brinks, who stated he had explicitly communicated his preference for the line's location prior to signing the easement, and had protested when a surveyor indicated it would run through the middle of the property. Mr. Doyle presented an aerial photo map of the land, which lacked a right-of-way line. An agent later visited the property, where the north line was identified. Contrarily, Mr. Doyle claimed that the map included a red line indicating the right-of-way, added by engineers in Joplin, Missouri. John M. Taylor, an abstracter, confirmed he marked the map with the red line. Charley McCorley, another agent, stated that he staked the center line and noted that Mr. Brinks walked a considerable distance without objection. The case references Snyder v. Snyder, emphasizing that a trial judge, who observes witnesses, is better positioned to assess credibility than an appellate court reviewing written records. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings, with Judges Harris and Smith dissenting.