W. 415; Sweetland v. Olsen, 11 Mont. 27, 27 Pac. 339; Spaulding v. Abbott, 55 N. H. 423; Voorbees v. Burchard, 55 N. Y. 58; Shields v. Titus, 46 Ohio St. 528, 22 N. E. 717; Jackson v. Trullinger, 9 Ore. 393; Ruhnke v. Aubert, 58 Ore. 6, 113 Pac. 38; Rhea v. Forsyth, 37 Pa. St. 503, 78 Am. Dec. 441; Chambersburg Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Cumberland Valley R. Co., 240 Pa. St. 519, 87 Atl. 968; Re Barhous-en, 142 Wis. 292, 124 N. W. 649.

7. Shelby v. Chicago & E. I. R. Co. 143 111. 385, 32 N. E. 438; Agnew v. Pawnee City, 79 Neb. 603, 113 N. W, 236; Smith v. Garbe, 86 Neb. 94, 124 N. W. 921.

8. Callaway v. Forest Park Highlands Co., 113 Md. 1, 77 Atl. 141; Crocker v. Fothergill, 2 Barn.

& Ald. 661.

9. Ackroyd v. Smith, 10 C. B. 164; Moore v. Crose, 43 Ind. 30; Baker v. Kenney, 145 Iowa. 638. 139 Am. St. Rep. 456, 12 N. W. 901; Ring v. Walker, 87 Me. 550, 33 Atl. 175; Wilson v. Ford, 209 N. Y. 186, 102 N. E. 614; Wood v. Woodley, 160 N. C. 17, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1107, 75 S. E 719; Boatman v. Lasley, 23 Ohio St. 614; Cadwalader v. Bailey, 17 R. I. 495, 14 L. R. A. 300. 23 Atl. 20; Reise v. Enos. 76 Wis. 634, 8 L. R. A. 617, 45 N W. 414.

That the attempted transfer of the easement apart from the dominant tenement does not extinguish the easement, see a suggestive note in 20 Harv. Law Rev. 136.

10. Post, Sec. 372.

Until a certain event occurs.11 An appurtenant easement may also, as well as an easement in gross, be for life, as having been intended to endure only so long as the grantee's life estate in the dominant tenement endures,12 or as having been created by one having only a life estate in the land in which it is created. The easement may be for years only.13

- Determination of class. Whether, in any particular case, an easement created by grant is an easement appurtenant or an easement in gross, is to be determined by the language of the grant as construed in the light of the surrounding circumstances.13a That the easement is of value to particular land owned by the grantee of the easement,14 or that it is valueless except as exercised for the benefit of such land,15 tends to

11. See e. g. Arbaugh v. Alexander, 164 Iowa, 635. 146 N. W. 747; Wooding v. Michael, 89 Conn. 704, 96 Atl. 170.

12. See Hoffman v. Savage, 15 Mass. 130; Goodall v. Godfrey, 53 Vt. 219, 38 Am. Rep. 671; Pym v. Harrison, 33 Law Times, 796.

13. Davis v. Morgan, 8 B. & C. 8. See Booth v. Alcock, L. R. 8 Ch. 663; Newhoff v. Mayo, 48 N. J. Eq. 619, 27 Am. St. Rep. 455, 23 Atl. 265.

13a. Hopper v. Barnes, 113 Cal. 636, 45 Pac. 874; Durkee v. Jones, 27 Colo. 159, 60 Pac. 618; Blan-chard v. Maxson, 84 Conn. 429, 80 206; Cassens v. Meyer, 154 Iowa, 187, 134 X. W. 543; Hammond v. Eads, 146 Ky. 162, 142 S. W. 379; Dennis v. Wilson, 107 Mass. 591; Kent Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Long, 111 Mich. 383, 69 N. W. 657; Liederding v. Zignego, 77 Minn. 421, 77 Am. St. Rep. 677, 80 N. W. 360; Smith v. Garbe, 86 Neb. 94, 124 N. W. 921; Ruhnke v. Aubert,

53 Ore. 6, 113 Pac. 38; Cadwal-ader v. Bailey, 17 R. I. 495, 23 Atl. 20.

14. Webb v. Jones, 163 Ala. 637, 50 S. 887; Durkee v. Jones, 27 Colo. 159, 60 Pac. 618; Blanchard v. Maxson, 84 Conn. 429, 80 Atl. 206; Cherokee Mills v. Standard Cotton Mills, 138 Ga. 856, 76 S. E. 373; Goodwillie Co. v. Commonwealth Electric Co., 241 111. 42, 89 N. E. 272; Cassens v. Meyer, 154 Iowa, 181, 134 N. W. 543; Smith v. Ladd, 41 Me. 314; Greenwood Lake & P. J. R. Co., v. New York & G. L. R. Co., 134 N. Y. 435, 31 N. E. 874; Smith v. Garbe, Sit; Neb. 91, 136 Am. St. Rep. 674, 20 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1209, 124 N. W. 921; Ruffin v. Seaboard Air Line Rwy.. 151 N. Car. 330, 66 S. E. 317; Reise v. Enos, 76 Wis. 634, 8 L. R. A. 617, 45 N. W. 414; Jones v. Island Creek Coal Co., 79 W. Va. 532, 91 S. E. 391.

15. Hopper v. Barnes, 113 Cal. 636, 4.", Pac. 874; Schmidt v.

2 R. P. - 3 show that it is appurtenant to such land. The fact that, after the creation of the easement, it was exercised exclusively in connection with particular property belonging to the grantee of the easement would seem also to tend to indicate that it is appurtenant thereto.16 That the grant of an easement is in terms in favor of one, his heirs and assigns, does not tend to show that it is personal rather than appurtenant,17 nor, on the other hand, does the omission of such words ordinarily have such an effect.18 That it is granted to one for life or during his occupation of particular land has been regarded as showing an intention to create a mere personal right.18a

The courts tend to regard an easement as appurtenant rather than as in gross,19 and accordingly, in

Brown, 226 111. 590, 80 X. E. 1071; Cassens v. Meyer, 154 Iowa, 187. 134 N. W. 543; Dennis v. Wilson, 107 Mass. 591; Lathrop v. Elsnor. 93 Mich. 593, 53 N. W. 791; Lid-gerding v. Zignego, 77 Minn. 421, 77 Am. St. Rep. 677, 80 X. W. 360; Cadwaher v. Bailey, 17 R. I. 495, 14 L. R. A. 300, 23 Atl. 20.

16. Ruhnke v. Aubert, 58 Ore. 6, 113 Pac. 38; Wesley v. M. N. Cartier & Sons Co., 30 R. I. 403,. 75 At. 626; Lidgerding v. Zignego, 77 Minn. 421, 77 Am. St. Rep. 677. 80 N. W. 360. And see Winston v. Johnson, 42 Minn. 398, 45 N. W. 958. But see Wentworth v.

Philpot, 60 N. H. 193.

17. Callaway v. Forest Park Highlands Co., 113 Md. 1. 77 Atl. 141; Parsons v. New York N. H. & H. R. Co., 216 Mass. 269, 103 X. E. 693; Mitchell v. D'olier, 68 N. J. L. 375, 59 L. R. A. 949. 53 Atl. 467. Rather does such language indicate an intention that the easement shall be appurtenant. Hopper v. Barnes, 113 Cal. 636, 45 Pac. 874; Moll v. Mccauley, 83 Iowa, 677, 50 N. W. 216: French v. Williams, 82 Va. 462, 4 S. E. 591.

18. Dennis v. Wilson. 107 Mass. 591; Teachout v. Capital Lodge etc., 128 Iowa. 384. 104 N. W. 440; Cleveland C. C. & St. L. Rwy. Co. v. Griswold, 51 Ind. App. 497, 97 N. E. 1030; United States Pipe Line Co. v. Delaware L. & W. R. Co., 62 N. J. L. 254. 42 L. R. A. 572. 41 Atl. 759: Contra Comm. v. Zimmerman, 56 Pa. Super. 311; Wilder v. Wheeler. 60 N. H. 351. Compare Lidgerding v. Zignego, 77 Minn. 421, 77 Am. St. Rep. 677, 80 N. W. 360.