Blackacre, Greenacre and Whiteacre had all formerly been in common ownership and the owner of Whiteacre denied that Blackacre was entitled to an easement to pass the water from Greenacre to Blackacre.
Held: The Will which effected’ the severance of the three properties operated to devise Blackacre with the right of passage of such water as might flow through the pipe and to devise Whiteacre subject to such a right. Further, although the right of Blackacre to a supply of water from Greenacre had not been established, the possible lack of any right to such water as against Greenacre did not impair the validity of the right to the passage of water through Whiteacre. In considering an easement for a water supply the court drew a crucial distinction between a right to supply of water and a right to the passage of water. The obligation was limited to a duty to allow water to flow along the pipe. It was not a duty to supply water.
Citations:
[1916] 2 CH 459
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Duffy v Lamb (T/a Vic Lamb Developments) CA 10-Apr-1997
The plaintiff sought damages after the interruption of the electricity supply from neighbouring land by the defendant. An easement was established, but the defendant wanted the plaintiff to make his own arrangements for connection. The judge had . .
Cited – Rance v Elvin CA 14-Feb-1985
The plaintiff complained that he had an easement over the defendants land for the supply of water, including the right to connect into the mains on the defendant’s land. The defendant said that the right was only to connect to the mains directly. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Utilities
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.263629