FACTS:

Case regarding the milling contracts and use of the railroad in going to the sugar central

HELD:

1. In a contract establishing an easement of way in favor of a sugar company for the construction of a railroad for the transportation of sugar cane from the servient estates to the mill, it is contrary to the nature of the contract to pretend that only sugar cane grown in the servient estates can be transported on said railroad, because it is a well-settled rule that things serve their owner by reason of ownership and not by easement. That an easement being established in favor of the sugar company, the owners of the servient estates cannot limit its use to the transportation of their cane, there being no express stipulation to that effect.

2. An easement of way is not more burdensome by causing to pass hereon wagons carrying goods pertaining to persons who aren’t wners of the servient estates and at all time the person entitled o the easement may please, for in such case the easement ontinues to be the same.