In Nicholas v. Chamberlain. Cro. Jac. 121, there is a dictum by Popham, C. J., that no such easement to have the water pass to one's land is created if the pipes were laid by a lessee of the grantor or by a disseisor, and they were not in any way adopted by the grantor as a part of the premises before making the conveyance. This dictum was applied in Cogswell v. Cogswell, 81 Wash. 315, 142 Pac. 655.

89. Jarvis v. Seele Mill Co., 173 111. 192, 64 Am. St. Rep. 107, 50 N. E. 1044; Smith v. Dressel-house, 152 Mich. 451, 116 N. W. 387; Richardson v. Bigelow, 15 Gray (Mass.) 154; Simmons v.

Cloonan, 81 X. Y. 557.

90. Preble v. Reed, 17 Me. 169; Baker v. Mcguire, 53 Ga. 245, 57 Ga. 109; Burr v. Mills, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 290; Znamanacek v. Jelinek, 69 Neb. 110, 111 Am. St. Rep. 533, 95 X. W. 28; Latta v. Catawba Electric & Power Co., 146 N. Car. 285, 59 S. E. 1028.

91. Jordan v. Otis, 38 Ms. 429; Tunstall v. Christian. 80 Va. 1. 56 Am. Rep. 581; Richards v. Rose, 9 Exch. 217. But see Griffiths v. Morrison, 106 X. Y. 165, 12 X. E. 580; Whyte v. Builders' League, 164 N. Y. 429. 58 X. E. 517.

92. Kahn v. Cherry, 131 Ark. 49, 198 S. W. 266; Xippert v. Warneke, 128 Cal. 501, 61 Pac. 96, 270; Goldschmid v. Staning. :. Mackey (D. C.) 582; Ringgold Lodge v. De Kalb Lodge, 157 Ky. 203, 16 S. W. 1111; Carlton v. Blake, 152 Mass. 176, 23 Am. St. Rep. 818, 25 X. E. 83; Cherry v. Brizzolara, 89 Ark. 309, 116 S. W. 668; Partridge v. Gilbert, L5 X. Y. 601, 69 Am. Dec. 632; Eno v. Del Vecchio, 4 Duer. (X Y -) 53, 6 Duer. 17; Henry v. Koch, 80 Ky. 391, 44 Am. Rep 484; Doyle v. Ritter, 6 Phila. 577; Schwalm v. Beardsley, 106 Va. 407, 56 S. E. 135.

1276 Eeal Property. [Sec. 363 utilize a stairway on adjoining property,93 and to have a building encroach on another's land,94 and even to have water in an adjoining pond kept at a fixed level.94a

- Easement of light. In England and one or two states, it is the ordinary rule that, if one conveys land on which there is a building which is lighted by windows opening on land retained by the grantor, the grantee is entitled to an easement of light over such land, and the grantor cannot obstruct his light by building on his land.05 Generally, in this country, however, it has been held that no such grant of an easement of light will be implied, it being calculated unduly to burden land, and to interfere with its alienation and proper improvement;00 or that it will be implied only in case the light

93. Stephens v. Boyd, 157 Iowa, 570, 138 N. W. 389; National Exchange Bank v. Cunningham, 46 Ohio St. 575, 22 N. E. 924; Howell v. Estes, 71 Tex. 690, 12 S. W. 62; Geihle v. Smith, 146 Pa. 276,

28 Am. St. Rep. 796, 23 Atl. 437.

94. Lead City Miner's Union v. Moyer, 235 Fed. 376; Wilson v. Riggs, 27 App. D. C. 550; John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Patterson, 103 Ind. 582, 53 Am. Rep. 550, 2 N. E. 188; Smith v. Lockwood, 100 Minn. 221, 110 X. W. 980; Carrig v. Mechanics' Bank, 136 Iowa, 261, I11 N. W. 329; Katz v. Kaiser, 154 N. Y. 294, 48 N. E. 532; Grace M. E. Church v. Dobbins, 153 Pa. 294, 34 Am. St. Rep. 706, 25 Atl. 1120.

94a. Marshall Ice Co. v. La Plant, 136 Iowa, 621, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1073, 111 N. W. 1016.

95. Swansborough v. Coventry, 9 Bing. 305; Broomfield v. Williams (1897), 1 Ch. 602; Greer v. Van Meter, 54 N. J. Eq. 270,

33 Atl. 794; Sutphen v. Therkel-son, 38 N. J. Eq. 318; Fowler v. Wick. 74 N. J. Eq. 603, 70 Atl. 682; Liedtke v. Lipman, (N. J. Ch.) 76 Atl. 463; Janes v. Jenkins, 34 Md. 1, 6 Am. Rep. 300. See Wood v. Grayson, 22 Dist. Col. App. 432.

96. Kennedy v. Burnap, 120 Cal. 488, 40 L. R. A. 476, 52 Pac. S43; Keating v. Springer, 146 111. 481, 22 L. R. A. 544, 37 Am. St. Rep. 175, 34 N. E. 805; Anderson v. Bloomheart, 101 Kan. 691, 168 Pac. 900, 901; Ray v. Sweeney, 14 Bush (Ky.) 1, 29 Am. Rep. 388; Keiper v. Klein, 51 Ind. 316; Keats v. Hugo, 115 Mass. 204, 15 Am. Rep. 80; Mullen v. Strieker, 19 Ohio St. 135, 2 Am. Rep. 379; Bailey v. Gray, 53 S. C. 503, 31 S. E. 354; Roe v. Walsh, 76 Wash. 148, 135 Pac. 1031, 136 Pac. 1146. See Morrison v. Marquardt, 24 Iowa, 35, 92 Am. Dec. 444; White v. Bradley, 66 Me. 254 entering the grantee's building over the grantor's land is actually necessary to the use of such building.97

The same rule as that ordinarily applied in connection with a conveyance in fee simple has also been asserted in connection with a lease, it being held that the lessor, or one claiming under him, may erect a building on land adjoining the premises leased, although he thereby obstructs the passage of light to the latter premises.98 Some courts have, however, indicated a disposition to protect a tenant under a lease to a greater extent in this regard than a grantee in fee simple, having in view perhaps that the burden on the adjoining land will endure only for the life of the lease, and that the tenant is not in a position to change the construction of the building in order to procure light otherwise. Thus it has in one state been decided that the lease of a room "with appurtenances" passes an easement in the yard attached to the building, for the procurement of light and air,98a and in another that one who leases front rooms in his building cannot construct an addition to the building on an unenclosed space in front thereof so as to cut off the light and air from the

97. Robinson v. Clapp, 65 Conn. 365, 29 L. R. A. 582, 32 Atl. 939; Turner v. Thompson, 58 Ga. 268, 24 Am. Rep. 497; Dar-r.ell v. Columbus Show Case Co., 129 Ga. 62, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 333, 58 S. E. 631; Case v. Minot, 158 Mass. 577, 22 L. R. A. 536, 33 N. E. 700; Lipsky v. Heller, 199 Mass. 310, 85 N. E. 453; Renny-son's Appeal, 94 Pa. St. 147, 39 Am. Rep. 577; Powell v. Sims, 5 W. Va. 1, 13 Am. Rep. 629.

98. Keating v. Springer, 146 111. 481, 34 N. E. 805, 22 L. R. A. 544, 37 Am. St. Rep. 175 (in this case, however, there was an express covenant on the subject i :

Palmer v. Wetmore, 4 N. Y. Super. Ct. (2 Sancif.) 316; Myers v. Gem-mel, 10 Barb, (N. Y.) 537; Lindsey v. First Nat. Bank, 115 N. C. 553, 20 S. E. 621.