Brief Fact Summary. This case arises from a dispute when an easement was established in Tisch’s favor for all purposes of ingress and egress to and from an alleyway against S.S. Kresge Co. (Plaintiff), in 1936. Thereafter, Winkelman Realty Co. (Defendant), purchased the Tisch property in 1943, and began using the easement previously used by Tisch in his barbershop and living quarters, for transportation and storage of goods, which were consigned to various stores of the Defendant.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A prescriptive right acquired by a particular use of the property cannot ordinarily justify an added use in connection with the dominant estate in a manner far different from that employed in the original use.
An easement can be used only in connection with the estate to which it belongs.
View Full Point of LawIssue. Can a prescriptive easement for one purpose be added to by a subsequent usage and still be upheld?
Held. No. Judgment affirmed. The requested modification of the Plaintiff is denied on the basis that the modification requests relief, which was in excess of the complaint’s prayer for relief.
The court held that Defendants’ easement was originally prescribed for usage by a business of a barbershop and living quarters to have a means of ingress and egress, and that the storage and transport of goods is outside the scope of the original prescription.
A prescriptive right acquired by a particular use of the property cannot ordinarily justify an added use in connection with the dominant estate in a manner far different from that employed under the original use.
The Defendants argued that they had not unreasonably changed the nature or use of the alleyway. The court found that an owner of a servient estate is not required to wait until his property has been unreasonably burdened, such that the dominant estate gains additional rights.
The Plaintiff’s request for a modification of the original judgment to enjoin the Defendants from any use of the alleyway is denied on the basis that the modification requested makes a demand for more than was in the original complaint. The Plaintiff is limited to such relief as he prayed for and not more.
Discussion. A prescriptive right acquired by a particular use of the property cannot ordinarily justify an added use in connection with the dominant estate in a manner far different from that employed in the original use.