Hill

Hill v. Allan

Bad Law
1968 Cal. App. LEXIS 1991·259 Cal. App. 2d 470·66 Cal. Rptr. 676
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 27, 1968Civ. 23946California8,068 words

Opinion

Opinion

Taylor, J.

Defendants (hereafter collectively Allans) appeal from a judgment quieting the title of plaintiffs and cross-defendants (hereafter collectively referred to as Nielsons) to a prescriptive easement, enjoining them from interferring with the use thereof, and denying relief on their cross-complaint. The Allans contend error because the Nielsons’ contemplated use would unduly burden the servient tenement. On the Nielsons’ cross-appeal, the only contention is that the trial court erred in denying them damages for disparagement of title. While we will separately set forth the particular contentions on appeal and the cross-appeal, a summary of the facts, more or less in chronological order, is necessary for an understanding of all the issues presented.

The Allans own an 800-acre tract of land consisting of individual ownerships with coterminous boundaries in Monterey County, south of Carmel-By-The-Sea, directly east of and adjacent to State Highway No. 1 and Point Lobos Reserve State Park. The Nielsons own the 120 acres located uphill to the south and east of the Allan property. The easement in controversy curves irregularly for about a mile and a half along an existing road that runs…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.