to landownership: (1) the extent of Union Pacific’s interest in the rights-of-way; and (2) adjoining parcel owner’s interest in the land beneath the rights-of-way. While these two general questions may be common to the class, this alone does not suffice to meet the typicality requirement because federal grants are far from uniform. After 1871, Congress generally discontinued its practice of granting railroads fee title to lands in the West and granted only easements instead. See Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 315 U.S. 262, 274, 62 S.Ct. 529, 86 L.Ed. 836 (1942). That does not mean, however, that prior to 1871 Congress always granted outright ownership to the railroads. See, e.g., United States v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 353 U.S. 112, 114, 77 S.Ct. 685, 1 L.Ed.2d 693 (1957) (<HOLDING>). This brief discussion of the differences in
holding that one who possesses deeded easement need not use the easement to maintain his title and easement cannot be extinguished from nonuser alone recognizing that where a grantee has an easement which he shares with others his duty to repair and maintain it must be apportioned with all other easement holders based upon the extent of the individuals use of the easement holding that an easement agreement and an unrecorded easement plan created an easement holding that railroads rights under 1862 act were for surface easement only recognizing that an easement may entitle the easement owner to do acts which were not for the easement would constitute a nuisance