Cited by

[¶16] Finally, we address the intervenor’s argument that the trial court’s interpretation comports with the rule of reason as stated in Sakansky v. Wein.

“The application of this rule raises a question of fact to be determined” by considering “all the surrounding circumstances, including the location and uses of both dominant and servient estates, and taking into consideration the advantage to be derived by one and the disadvantage to be suffered by the other owner.” Sakansky v. Wein, 86 N.H. 337, 339 (1933).

or else to give a detailed definition to rights created by general words either actually used or, whose existence is implied by law.” Sakansky v. Wein, 86 N.H. 337, 339 (1933).

No more may the [servient estate owner] compel the [dominant estate owner] to detour over other land of theirs.

It may not be invoked to compel an easement holder to relocate an easement, regardless of the necessity to the servient estate or the lack of inconvenience to the easement holder.

at 332, it generally limits easement rights to those rights that are reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the easement, see Thurston Enterprises, Inc. v. Baldi, 128 N.H. 760, 766 (1986); Sakansky v. Wein, 86 N.H. 337, 339-40 (1933); Bean v. Coleman, 44 N.H. 539, 544 (1863).

While Harold Brown could not have effected such a change unilaterally, see Sakansky v. Wein, 86 N.H. 337, 340 (1933) (owners of servient estate may not “compel the [owner of the dominant estate] to detour over other land of theirs”), the campers acquiesced in the relocation and, as the trial judge found, with ample support in the evidence, they used the new right-of-way “for over thirty years without issue.” Cf. Donaghey

We next consider whether the town’s construction and use of the road conformed to the rule of reason.

Johnson contends that we should apply the “rule of reason” from Sakansky v. Wein, 86 N.H. 337 (1933), to interpret the parties’ intentions concerning the easement.

Dumont, 137 N.H. at 5-6, 622 A.2d 1242; Sakansky v. Wein, 86 N.H. 337, 339, 169 A. 1, 2 (1933).

Clear and unambiguous terms of a deed control how we construe the parties’ intent, see Lussier, 133 N.H. at 756, 584 A.2d at 181, but the law may imply supplemental rights.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the trial court misapplied the “rule of reason” which this court announced in Sakansky v. Wein, 86 N.H. 337, 169 A. 1 (1933).

Right, at 392-93 (1952), and, in the absence of a specified location, entitles the Sewards to only “a reasonably convenient and suitable way across the [Steeles’] land.” Barton’s Motel, Inc. v. Saymore Trophy Co., 113 N.H. 333, 335-36, 306 A.2d 774, 776 (1973); cf. Sakansky v. Wein, 86 N.H. 337, 340, 169 A. 1, 3 (1933) (deeded right-of-way, with definite location, confers an absolute right to exercise the right-of-way in the specified location, whether or not the location is reasonable).

We have for some time adhered to the standard of reasonable use in property cases such as this.

The grantee of the easement, who is the possessor of the dominant estate, must use the easement reasonably, Sakansky v. Wein, 86 N.H. 337, 341, 169 A. 1, 3 (1933), so as not to damage the possessory interest of the grantor, who is the possessor of the servient estate upon which the easement lies, Donaghey v. Croteau, 119 N.H. 320, 324, 401 A.2d 1081, 1084 (1979).

In considering what uses may be made of an easement, this court applies the “reasonable use” theory.

e parties to a right-of-way are questions of fact that must be determined in light of the surrounding circumstances, including the location and *439 uses of both parties’ property, and by taking into consideration the advantage of one owner’s use and the disadvantage to the other owner caused by that use.” Delaney v. Gurrieri, 122 N.H. 819, 821, 451 A.2d 394, 395 (1982) (citing Sakansky v. Wein, 86 N.H. 337, 339, 169 A. 1, 2 (1933)).

Finding that the right of way was obtained as a substitute for the rights Mr. Argentati had in Alden Road and that the right of way was not limited, the master concluded that the rule in Sakansky v. Wein, 86 N.H. 337, 339-40, 169 A. 1, 2 (1933), permitted Mr. Argentati “to install or cause to be installed upon the right of way.

On appeal, the defendants contend that because the master failed to apply the “reasonable use” analysis as enunciated in Sakansky v. Wein, 86 N.H. 337, 339, 169 A. 1, 2 (1933), to determine the rights of the respective parties to the right-of-way, his decision was contrary to the law.

Barton’s Motel, Inc. v. Saymore Trophy Co., 113 N.H. 333, 306 A.2d 774 (1973); Sandown v. Kelley, 97 N.H. 418, 89 A.2d 758 (1952); Sakansky v. Wein, 86 N.H. 337, 169 A. 1 (1933); Abbott v. Butler, 59 N.H. 317 (1879).

*494 Sakansky v. Wein, 86 N.H. 337, 339, 169 A. 1, 2 (1933) (citations omitted); see Heston v. Ouster, 119 N.H. 58, 398 A.2d 536 (1979).

The defendants’ use of the right-of-way and wharf must, of course, be reasonable and must take into consideration both the contemplated use and changed circumstances.

Sakansky v. Wein, 86 N.H. 337, 169 A. 1 (1933); Sandown v. Kelley, 97 N.H. 418, 89 A.2d 758 (1952); 3 Tiffany, Real Property § 804, at 328 (3d ed. 1939).

Whittier v. Winkley, 62 N.H. 338 (1882); Sakansky v. Wein, 86 N.H. 337, 169 A. 1 (1933).