In Laux v. Freed (1960) 53 Cal.2d 512, the lower court found that defendants' use of a right of way over plaintiff s' property by deer hunters had unreasonably increased the burden on the servient tenement; that such use was not contemplated by the parties at the time of the original grant; and that such grant was made for the sole purpose of permitting defendants to move livestock, feed, machinery and stock raising and other farm goods and chattels to and from the county road across plaintiffs' land to that of the defendants. (Laux v. Freed, supra, 53 Cal.2d at pp. 519-520.) The lower court issued an injunction precluding the defendants from using the granted right of way for commercial hunting and limiting them to the agricultural uses listed in the judgment. (Id. at p. 520.) The Supreme Court reversed. It found, "There appears to be nothing unclear, uncertain or ambiguous, at least as relevant to the issues of this case, in the words 'For Value Received, Adolph D. Laux and Joyce H. Laux . . . grant to William J. Freed and Bertell F. Freed . . . as Joint Tenants, all the real property situated in the County of Colusa . . . described as follows: A right of way over a road as presently constructed along the East Branch of Sand Creek, in the East half of Section 18' etc." (Laux v. Freed, supra, 53 Cal.2d at p. 523.) Further, " 'a grant in general terms of an easement of way will ordinarily be construed as creating a general right of way capable of use in connection with the dominant tenement for all reasonable purposes. . . . ' Also, in Thompson on Real Property, volume 2 (Perm. ed.), sections 577-578, pages 183-186, the rule is stated as follows: 'A grant of a right of way unrestricted as to purpose is a grant of a way to be used for any purpose whatever. . . . ' We conclude that the record does not support the limitations imposed by injunction on the right of way granted to defendants.. . . The record fails to provide a legally sufficient basis for judicially writing into plaintiffs' deed of an unlimited right of way, the restrictions embodied in the injunction." (53 Cal.2d at p. 525.)