## Facts

- Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) operated an interstate natural-gas pipeline system.
- In 1931, Northern obtained a written “blanket” easement over part of a Minnesota farm, together with rights of ingress and egress to construct, inspect, repair, maintain, and replace pipeline property, or remove it, at Northern’s will.
- The 1931 agreement required Northern to pay the landowner 50 cents per lineal rod of pipeline, payable when the pipeline location was established, surveyed, and measured.
- In 1932, Northern constructed a natural-gas pipeline across the property pursuant to the easement and continued operating and maintaining it for decades.
- Norbert and Delores Scherger later purchased the farm, taking title subject to the recorded easement.
- In 1995, Northern notified the Schergers that it intended to replace the existing pipeline and tendered $905, calculated under the per-rod payment clause.
- Northern planned for the replacement pipeline to run near the original line but not directly on the same strip of land, roughly 50 to 300 feet from the 1932 line, still within the land described in the 1931 grant.
- The Schergers demanded that Northern provide a definite and specific description of the existing pipeline easement and negotiate a new easement; if negotiations failed, the Schergers insisted Northern should acquire rights for the new route by condemnation.
- Northern responded that it would provide a description after construction and that the 1931 agreement already allowed it to place a replacement pipeline anywhere within the boundaries of the blanket easement.
- The Schergers filed a mandamus action seeking to compel Northern to commence condemnation proceedings.
- The district court, on cross-motions for summary judgment on stipulated facts, granted summary judgment for Northern and dismissed the Schergers’ mandamus request.
- The court of appeals reversed, reasoning that the 1932 pipeline’s location fixed the easement’s location and the replacement must stay within that original corridor.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Under the 1931 easement agreement, may Northern replace the 1932 pipeline by placing the replacement line anywhere within the land described in the blanket easement, or is Northern confined to the route used for the original line?
2. Does Minn. Stat. § 300.045 apply to Northern’s 1931 easement so as to restrict Northern’s replacement rights and require condemnation for a replacement line located off the 1932 route?

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the district court’s summary judgment for Northern.
- The court held the 1931 easement’s language was clear and unambiguous and granted Northern a blanket easement that permitted replacement of the pipeline anywhere within the described easement area.
- The court rejected the argument that construction of the 1932 pipeline permanently fixed the easement to that specific route where the written grant provided broader rights, including replacement, over the described land.
- The court held Minn. Stat. § 300.045 did not apply to Northern’s 1931 easement and did not operate to limit or alter the rights Northern acquired under that preexisting grant.
- Because Northern had no legal duty to initiate condemnation proceedings when acting within its existing easement rights, mandamus relief was unavailable.

## Legal Principles

- The scope of an easement is determined primarily by the plain language of the written instrument; when the terms are unambiguous, courts enforce them as written.
- A blanket (floating) utility easement over a described tract can authorize placement of facilities within that tract, and language authorizing construction and replacement can preserve the grantee’s ability to place a replacement line at a different location within the described area.
- A compensation clause tied to the length of installed pipeline can function as the contract’s payment method for lines laid under the easement and does not, by itself, confine the easement to the first-built route.
- Statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless the legislature clearly provides otherwise; later-enacted statutory requirements generally do not restrict vested property rights created by earlier conveyances.
- Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that requires a clear legal duty owed by the respondent; it does not lie to force condemnation where the respondent is already acting within existing property rights.

## Conclusion

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that Northern’s 1931 blanket easement allowed it to install a replacement pipeline anywhere within the land described in the easement, even if the new line ran 50 to 300 feet from the 1932 line, and that Minn. Stat. § 300.045 did not apply to restrict or redefine Northern’s pre-1973 easement rights; therefore, Northern had no duty to condemn, and mandamus could not compel condemnation proceedings.


Scherger v. Northern Natural Gas Co., 575 N.W.2d 578 (1998)