Eliason v. Grove

Citations

• 85 Md. 215
• 36 A. 844
• 1897 Md. LEXIS 40

Syllabus

<p>Easements — Right to Use Well of Water Upon an Adjoining Lot— Implied Grant of Easements' — Purchase of Property Subject to Continuous and Visible Servitude — Obstruction of Easement— Damages.</p> <p>When land is sold to which clearly visible easements and privileges are annexed which are necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the land conveyed, there is an implied grant of the same and corresponding servitude imposed upon the land retained by the grantor.</p> <p>If the owner of two adjacent lots of ground uses one for the benefit of the other, in such a manner that if the lots had been owned by different persons, it would be presumed that an easement existed in favor of one parcel and a servitude imposed upon the other, then, upon the conveyance by the owner of the former lot the purchaser . would be entitled to the easement as against the other tenement, provided the easement be continuous, apparent and necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the property granted.</p> <p>If, in such case, the vendor does not intend that the former mode of using the two lots should continue, there should be a provision to that effect in the deed, or a change made in the condition of the premises before the sale.</p> <p>The owner of two adjacent town lots erected thereon a double dwelling-house. In the rear there was a well of water on or near the division line between the yards and a gate in the fence near the well. The owner sold the lot on which the well was not located, and after-wards the other lot. By mesne conveyances the two lots became vested in plaintiff and defendant respectively, the pump in the well being in defendant’s yard. None of the deeds mentioned the use of the well. The well was used in common by the occupants of both houses for more than twenty years, and the fact of such use was apparent upon an inspection of the property. A few years after defendant came into possession of his lot, he closed the door between the two yards, and refused to allow plainti