Property containing cattle sheds was sold, together with an implied right to the supply of water along pipes leading from a tank on the vendor’s land. The purchaser demolished the cattle sheds and erected cottages in their place.
Held: A drainage easement is ‘continous and apparent’. ‘[W]hat passed to [the purchaser] was a right to have the water flow in the accustomed manner through the [servient] premises to his premises, and . . when it arrived at his premises he could do what he liked with it, and . . he would not lose his right to the water by any alteration he might make in his premises.’
Citations:
(1870) 6 Ch App 166
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – McAdams Homes Ltd v Robinson and Another CA 27-Feb-2004
The defendant blocked the line of a sewer. The claimant alleged that it had an easement and sought the cost of building the alternative pipe. The question to be answered was ‘Where an easement is granted by implication on the sale of a property, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.194010