Pavlik v. Consolidation Coal Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
456 F.2d 378 (1972)
- Written by John Yi, JD
Facts
Pavlik (plaintiff) granted Consolidation Coal Co. (defendant) an easement “for the purposes and with the rights of constructing, maintaining, operating, altering, repairing, replacing and removing one pipe line for the transportation of coal slurry.” The easement, which cost $995, would terminate if the pipeline ceased to be used “for the purpose set forth herein” for a period of one year. Consolidation supplied coal to the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI) using the pipeline from 1957 to 1963. In 1963, Consolidation and CEI executed a supplemental agreement by which they put the pipeline into an inactive state, although Consolidation was obligated to maintain the pipeline in standby, ready to resume operations upon notice. Meanwhile, Consolidation and Pavlik agreed by a series of supplemental agreements to extend the one-year defeasance timeframe. They stipulated that they had negotiated to remove the defeasance clause and to allow the transmission of products other than coal slurry, and that the purpose of the extension was to “preserve the status quo” during negotiations. Negotiations failed and there were no more extensions after May 1967. Pavlik then sought a declaration of rights under the contract. The district judge held that the inactivity of the pipeline did not terminate the easement because it was kept ready to transport coal slurry. Pavlik appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Edwards, J.)
Dissent (McCree, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 789,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.