## Facts

- Plaintiffs owned land benefitted by an expressly granted, precisely located eighteen-foot-wide right of way across defendants’ adjoining land.
- The grant contained no express limits on the manner of use or on vertical clearance.
- Defendants planned to construct a building over the easement area, leaving only eight feet of headroom for passage under the structure.
- Defendants alternatively proposed creating a new route around the building that would reconnect to plaintiffs’ land at the same endpoint as the original way.
- A master found that an eight-foot clearance would prevent plaintiffs from using the original route with certain vehicles exceeding eight feet in height.
- Over plaintiffs’ objection, the master received evidence about the proposed substitute route and reasoned that the combined plan (reduced clearance plus substitute route) would not unreasonably interfere with plaintiffs’ easement.
- The master recommended allowing construction over the original way if defendants provided the substitute route.
- Plaintiffs sought an injunction and excepted to the admission of evidence regarding the proposed substitute way and to the recommendation permitting construction.

## Issues

1. Whether a proposed substitute route over the servient land is admissible and relevant to determine whether restricting vertical clearance on an existing, fixed easement is a reasonable interference.
2. Whether servient owners may, under a “reasonableness” standard, materially alter a precisely located express easement by building over it and limiting headroom, absent agreement or an authorizing provision in the grant.

## Decision

- Plaintiffs’ exceptions were sustained.
- The court rejected the master’s use of a proposed substitute way to justify impairing the existing easement.
- Defendants could not build across the established right of way in a manner that reduced clearance to eight feet and prevented ordinary uses within the scope of the grant.
- Plaintiffs were entitled to injunctive relief preventing construction that materially interfered with the granted easement.

## Legal Principles

- The “rule of reasonableness” in easement disputes operates chiefly as a rule for interpreting and regulating use within the scope of an express grant, not as a means to rewrite the grant’s essential attributes.
- When an easement is expressly granted and precisely located, a servient owner may not unilaterally relocate it or impose a material change (including reduced vertical clearance) that unreasonably interferes with the dominant owner’s rights.
- A proposed substitute route, dependent on future voluntary action and not part of the grant, cannot be used to diminish the dominant owner’s established rights in the existing easement.

## Conclusion

The court held that an expressly located right of way must be preserved as granted and enjoined construction that would materially impair it; a substitute route cannot be used to make an otherwise unreasonable interference appear reasonable.


Sakansky v. Wein, 86 N.H. 337, 169 A. 1 (N.H. 1933)