12. Worthington v. Gimson, 2 El. & El. 618; Brett v. Clowser, 5 C. P. Div. 376; Oliver v. Hook, 47 Md. 301; Bentley v. Mills, 174 Mass. 469, 54 N. E. 885 (semble); Morgan v. Meuth, 60 Mich. 238, 27 X. W. 509; Bonelli v. Blakemore, 66 Miss. 136, 14 Am. St. Rep. 550, 5 So. 228; Fetters v. Humphreys, 18 N. J. Eq. 260, 19 X. J. Eq. 471;

Kelly v. Dunning, 43 X. J. Eq. 62. 10 Atl. 276; Parsons v. Johnson, 68 N. Y. 62. 23 Am. Rep. 149; Carmon v. Dick, 170 N. C. 305, 87 S. E. 224; Providence Tool Co. v. Corliss Steam Engine Co., 9 R. I. 5G4: O'rorke v. Smith, 11 R. I. 259; Standiford v. Goudy. 6 W. Va. 364.

13. Brown v. Alabaster, 37 Ch. Div. 490; Thomas v. Owen. 20 Q. B. Div. 225; Watts v. Kelson. 6 Ch. App. 166; Ellis v. Bassett, 128 Ind. 118, 25 Am. St. Rep. 421. 27 N. E. 344; Stone v. Burkhead, 160 Ky. 47, 169 S. W. 489; Eliason v. Grove, 85 Md. 215, 36 Atl. 844; Gorton Pew Fisheries Co. v. Tolman, 210 Mass. 412, 97 N. E. 54; Phillips v. Phillips, 48 Pa. St. 178, 86 Am. Dec. 577; Zell v. Universalist Society, 119 Pa. St. 390, 4 Am. St. Rep. 654, 13 Atl. 447; Com. v. Burford, 225 Pa. 93, 73 Atl. 1064; Hammond v. Ryman, 120 Va. 131, 90 S. E. 613; And see Martin v. Murphy, 221 111. 632, 77 N. E. 1126; Feitler v. Dobbins, 263 111. 78, 104 N. E

Occasionally it has been said to be of primary importance that the user, or the mode of exercising the user, have been in its nature permanent or approximately permanent,14 and certainly the mere fact that the grantor is, at the time of the conveyance, making a temporary use of the land retained for the benefit of of the land conveyed, without any permanent adaptation of the land to the exercise of the user, is not calculated to induce the belief that the parties intend that the grantee shall be entitled to continue or repeat such user. Suppose for instance the grantor is piling on the land retained hay taken from the land conveved, such temporary user of the land retained for the benefit of the land conveyed is an insufficient basis on which to support a construction of the conveyance as including a right in subsequent years so to pile the hay from the land conveyed. It is in this sense only, as involving a requirement of permanency in the mode of user that, as above indicated, the requirement of con-tinuousness seems to be appropriate in this connection.

- User must be necessary. In this country the cases usually say that an easement is not thus created in favor of the transferee of land, as corresponding to a preexisting quasi easement, unless the easement, or the particular user involved therein, is "necessary," qualifying this expression, however, by other words indicating that this requirement of necessitv means little if any more than highly desirable.15 Thus it has been said that the easement must be necessary to the

1088

It has been said that the requirement of continuousness does not apply to the case of a way. Hoffman v. Shoemaker, 69 W. Va. 233, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 632, 71 S. E. 198.

14. See Liquid Carbonic Co. v. Wallace, 219 Pa. 457, 68 Atl. 1021;

Stephens v. Boyd, 157 Iowa, 570, 138 N. W. 389. And cases cited ante, this subsection, note 9.

15. The English cases do not ordinarily refer to such a requirement, but occasionally they do so. Wheeldon v. Burrows, 12 Ch. Div. 31; Suffield v. Brown, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 1001; Watts v. Kelson, proper enjoyment of the land,16 or to its reasonable,17 or convenient,18 or beneficial19 enjoyment, or "reasonably necessary" to its enjoyment or use,20 or to its convenient use,21 or "clearly necessary to its beneficial use."22

6 Ch. App. 166; Ewart v. Cochrane, 4 Macq. 117.

16. Evans v. Dana, 7 R. I. 306; Whiting v. Gaylord, 66 Conn. 337, 50 Am. St. Rep. 87, 34 Atl. 85.

17. Spencer v. Kilmer, 151 N. Y. 390, 45 N. E. 865; Cave v. Crafts, 53 Cal. 135; Robinson v. Clapp, 65 Conn. 365, 29 L. R. A. 582, 32 Atl. 939; Eliason v. Grove, 85 Md. 215, 36 Atl. 844; Powers v. Heffernan, 233 111. 597, 84 N. E. 661.

18. Kane v. Templin, 158 Iowa, 24 138 N. W. 901; Hankins v. Hendricks, 247 111. 517, 93 N. E. 428 (highly convenient and beneficial); Phillips v. Phillips, 48 Pa. St. 178, 86 Am. Dec. 577; Mcelroy v. Mcleay, 71 Vt. 396.

19. Case v. Minot, 158 Mass. 577, 22 L. R. A. 536, 33 N. E. 700; Sandford v. Boss, 76 N. H. 476, 84 Atl. 936; Carmon v. Dick, 170 N. C. 305, 87 S. E. 224.

20. Gaynor v. Bauer, 144 Ala. 448, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1082, 39 So. 749; Wilson v. Riggs, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 550; Robinson v. Hillman, 36 App. Cas. (D. C.) 241; John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Patterson, 103 Ind. 582. 53 Am. Rep. 550, 2 N. E. 188; Teachout v. Duffus, 141 Iowa, 466, 119 N. W. 983; Irvine v. Mc-creary, 108 Ky. 495, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 169, 49 L. R. A. 417, 56 S. W. 966; Dolliff v. Boston & M. R. Co., 68 Me. 173 (clearly necessary to beneficial enjoyment ) ;

Dinneen v. Corporation for Relief of Widows & Children of the Clergy of Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Maryland, 114 Md. 589, 79 Atl. 1021; Johnson v. Knapp, 146 Mass. 70. 15 N. E. 134, 150 Mass. 267, 23 N. E. 40; Bussmeyer v. Jablonsky, 241 Mo. 681, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 549, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 1104, 145 S. W. 772; Sanford v. Boss, 76 N. H. 476, 84 Atl. 936 (to beneficial enjoyment); Taylor v. Wright, 76 N. J. Eq. 121, 79 Atl. 433 (ditto); Fowler v. Wick, 74 N. J. Eq. 603, 70 Atl. 682; Paine v. Chandler, 134 N. Y. 385, 19 L. R. A. 99, 32 N. E. 18; Baker v. Rice, 56 Ohio St. 463, 47 N. E. 653; Rightsell v. Hale, 90 Tenn. 556, 18 S. W. 245; Rollo v. Nelson, 34 Utah, 116, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 315, 96 Fac. 263 (for use and convenient enjoyment); Goodal v. Godfrey, 53 Vt. 219, 38 Am. Rep. 671; San-derlin v. Baxter, 76 Va. 299, 44 Am. Rep. 165; Hammond v. Ry-man, 120 Va. 131, 90 S. E. 613 (reasonably essential to its use); Miller v. Skaggs, 79 W. Va. 645, Ann. Cas. 1918D, 929, 91 S E. 536.

21. New Ipswich W. L. Factory v. Batchelder, 3 N. H. 190; John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Patterson, 103 Ind. 582, 53 Am. Rep. 550, 2 N. E. 188 (reasonably necessary to fair enjoyment).