If the owner of the servient tenement has the right to have a gate across the way, the owner of the easement is under an obligation to shut the gate when he makes use of the way,79 and a failure to do so, it appears, operates to make his user of the way wrongful, constituting a trespass on the servient tenement.80

- Interference by third person. That A has an easement in land does not justify him in interfering, by the erection of structures or otherwise, with the exercise of an easement belonging to B in the same land,81 except, it seems, when such interference is necessary

19 Atl. 856; Hartman v. Fick, 167 Pa. 18, 31 Atl. 342, 46 Am. St. Rep. 658; Luster v. Garner, 128 Tenn. 160, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 87, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 769, 159 S. W. 604; Mitchell v. Bowman, 74 W. Va. 498, 82 S. E. 330; Dyer v. Walker, 99 Wis. 404, 75 X. W. 79. And see Evans v. Cook, 33 Ky. Law Rep. 788, 111 S. W. 326.

78a. Damron v. Justice, 162 Ky. 101, 172 S. W. 120; Moore v. White, 159 Mich. 460, 124 X. W. 62.

78b. That there is no such fluty, see Rowe v. Nally, 81 Md. 367, 32 Atl. 198.

79. Amondson v. Severson, 37 Iowa, 602; Truax v. Gregory, 196 111. 83, 63 N. E. 674; Brill v. Brill, 108 N. Y. 511, 15 N. E. 538; Damron v. Justice, 162 Ky. 101, 172

S. W. 120

That the owner of the easement is bound only to the exercise of reasonable care to see that the gates are kept closed. See Rater v. Shuttlefield, 146 Iowa, 512, 44 L. R. A. (X. S.) 101, 125 X. W. 235.

80. See Garland v. Furber, 47 X. H. 301.

81. West Louisville & X. R. Co., 155 Ala. 506, 46 So. 469; Goodwin v. Bragaw, 87 Conn. 31, 86 Atl. 668; Murphy v. Harker, 115 Ga. 77, 41 S. E. 585; Killion v. Kelly, 120 .Mass. 47; Freeman v. Sayre, 48 N. J. L. 37, 2 Atl. 650; Ellis v. Academy of Music, 120 Pa. 608, 6 Am. St. Rep. 7:::'. 15 Atl. 494; Allegheny Nat. Bank v. Reighard, 204 Pa. 391, 54 Atl. 268.

2 R. P. - 11 to the exercise of A's easement, and B's easement was acquired with notice, actual or constructive, of the prior grant to A.

- Remedy. An action for the disturbance or obstruction of an easement should, at common law, he in case.82 Ejectment does not lie,83 nor trespass quare clausum fregit.84 There being an infringement of his right, the owner of the easement is entitled to at least nominal damages.85

Notice to the owner of the servient tenement to remove an obstruction which he has interposed to the exercise of the easement is not necessary before bringing an action on account of such obstruction,86 but if the defendant, the owner of the servient tenement at the time of suit, is not the original creator of the obstruction, and he has merely allowed an obstruction created by a former owner to remain, a previous re82. Bale v. Todd, 123 Ga. 99, 50 S. E. 990; Martin v. Bliss, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 35, 32 Am. Dec. 52; Shaffer v. Smith, 7 Har. & J. (Md.) 67; Bowers v. Suffolk Mfg. Co., 4 Cush. (Mass.) 332; Osborne v. Butcher, 26 N. J. Law 308; Shroder v. Brenneman, 23 Pa. St. 348.

83. Adams, Ejectment, c. 2; Canton Co. v. City of Batimore, 106 Md. 69, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 129, 66 Atl. 671, 67 Atl. 274; Taylor v. Gladwin, 40 Mich. 232; Brier v. State Exchange Bank, 225 Mo. 673, 125 S. W. 469; Roberts v. Trujillo, 3 N. M. 87, 1 Pac. 855; Child v. Chappell, 9 N. Y. 246; Parker v. West Coast Packing Co., 17 Ore. 510, 5 L. R. A. 61, 21 Pac. 822; Hancock v. Mc-avoy, 151 Pa. St. 460, 18 L. R. A. 781, 31 Am. St. Rep. 774, 25 Atl. 47; Fritsche v. Fritsche, 77 Wis.

270, 45 N. W. 1089; Leblond v. Town of Peshtigo, 140 Wis. 604, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 511, 123 N. W. 157.

84. Chitty, Pleading (7th Ed.) 147, 159; Shafer v. Smith, 7 Har. & J. (Md.) 67; Morgan v. Boyes, 65 Me. 124; Wetmore v. Robinson, 2 Conn. 529; Osborne v. Butcher, 26 N. J. L. 308.

85. Tuttle v. Walker, 46 Me. 280; Collins v. St. Peters, 65 Vt. 618, 27 Atl. 425; Dewire v. Han-ley, 79 Conn. 454, 65 Atl. 573; Harrop v. Hirst, L. R. 4 Exch. 43; Goddard, Easements (6th Ed.) 438.

86. Collins v. St. Peters, 65 Vt. 618, 27 Atl. 425. But the easement may itself involve a necessity of notice to the owner of the servient tenement, that is, the easement may be one to be exercised only after notice to such quest to him to remove it is, it seems, necessary, unless, at least, he already had notice of the easement and its obstruction,87 this according with the rules ordinarily applicable to actions on account of the maintenance of a nuisance.88

A tenant of land holding under a lease may bring an action on account of the disturbance of an easement, he being directly affected thereby.88a The reversioner may also sue if the disturbance is of such a permanent character or otherwise of such a nature that he can be regarded as suffering damage therefrom.88b

In view of the incorporeal character of a pew, the remedy for interference, with the pew holder's right would seem properly to be an action on the case.89 In a number of cases in this country, however, it is held that trespass quare clausum fregit or ejectment will lie.90 cwner. See Phipps v. Johnson, 99 Mass. 26.

87. Hogan v. Barry, 143 Mass. 538, 10 N. E. 253; Elliott v. Rhett, 5 Rich. (,S. C.) 405, 57 Am. Dec. 750; Gale, Easements (8th Ed.) 588.

88. See note to Leahan v. Cochran, 86 Am. St. Rep. at p. 508, et seq.; 1 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten. p. 791.

88a. Gale, Easements (8th Ed.), 582; Walker v. Clifford, 128 Ala. 67, 86 Am. St. Rep. 74, 29 So. 588; Hamilton v. Dennison, 56 Conn. 359, 1 L. R. A. 287, 15 Atl. 748; Greist v. Amryhn, 80 Conn. 280, 68 Atl. 521; Morrison v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 117 Iowa, 587, 91 N. W. 793; Foley v. Wyeth, 2 Allen (Mass.) 135; Coleman v. Holden, 88 Miss. 798, 41 So. 374; Schmoele v. Beta, 212 Pa. 32, 108 Am. St. Rep. 845, 61

Atl. 525.

88b. See 2 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten., Sec. 353a.

89. See Stocks v. Booth, 1 Term R. 431; Bryan v. Whistler, 8 Barn. & C. 294; Perrin v. Granger, 33 Vt. 101; Trustees of the Third Presbyterian Congregation v. Andruss, 21 N. J. Law, 325; Daniel v. Wood, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 102, 11 Am. Dec. 151.