242 P. 1002 | Colo. | 1926
THE defendant in error brought suit and obtained a decree to quiet its title to a right of way through the land of Neville and to define the scope and extent thereof. The decree fixes the right at varying widths in different parts of the land, depending on the topography and the consequent varying necessities for maintenance, repairs, etc. *549 The title of plaintiff to the right of way was by prescription, i. e., user for about thirty years.
The plaintiff in error claims that the judgment should not be governed by the necessities, but, since the title was by prescription, the right must be limited in scope and extent to what was actually used. We cannot assent to that proposition.
The basic question, of course, is, What rights were acquired by prescription? The answer is "all that is reasonably necessary to the convenient and proper use and maintenance of the" ditch. Omaha R. v. Ry. Co. v. Rickards,
We do not find that any of the cases cited by plaintiff in error lead to his conclusions.
Judgment affirmed.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ALLEN and MR. JUSTICE WHITFORD concur. *550