Where the owner of two or more adjoining houses sells and conveys one of them to a purchaser, such house is entititled to the benefit and is subject to the burthen of all existing drains communicating with the other house, without any express reservation or grant for that purpose. The plaintiff’s and defendant’s houses adjoined each other. They had formerly been one house and were converted into two by the owner of the whole property. Subsequently the defendant’s house was conveyed to him, and after that the plaintiff took a conveyance of his house. At the times of these conveyances, a drain ran under the plaintiff’s house and thence under the defendant’s, and discharged itself into the common sewer. Water from the eaves of the defendant’s house fell on the plaintiff’s house, and then ran into a drain on the plaintiff’s premises and thence through the drain into the common sewer. The plaintiff’s house was drained through this drain.
Held: The plaintiff was, by implied grant, entitled to have the use of the drain as it was used at the time of the defendant’s purchase of the house. A drainage easement is deemed to be continuous and apparent.
Citations:
[1857] EngR 291, (1857) 1 H and N 916, (1857) 156 ER 1472, (1857) 1 HandN 916
Links:
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: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.194009