As before stated, the owner of land has no "natural right" to light or air, and cannot complain that either has been cut off by the erection of buildings on adjoining land.23 An owner of land may, however, acquire, by grant or its equivalent, a right to have light and air enter a particular window or other aperture, free from interruption by the owner of adjacent land, and such a right constitutes an easement in his favor.24

21. Schmidt v. Brown, 226 111. 590, 80 N. E. 1071.

22. Karmuller v. Krotz, 18 Iowa. 352; Davenport v. Lamson, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 72; Bowen v Conner, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 132. See Hopper v. Barnes, 113 Cal. 636, 45 Pac. 874.

22a. North British Railway Co. v. Park Yard Co. (1898) App. Cas. 643; Amidon v. Harris, 113 Mass. 59; Percival v. Williams, 82 Vt. 531, 74 Atl. 321; Kalmowski v. Jacobowski, 52 Wash. 359, 100 Pac. 852.

23. Ante, Sec. 336, note 4d, Sec. 338, note 29.

24. Turner v. Thompson. 58 Ga. 268, 24 Am. Rep. 497; Keating v. Springer, 146 111. 481, 22 L. R. A. 544, 37 Am. St. Rep. 175, 34 N. E. 805; White v. Bradley. 66 Me. 254; Janes v. Jenkins, 34 Md. 1, 6 Am. Rep. 300; Story v. Odin, 12 Mass. 157, 7 Am. Dec. 46; Brooks v. Reynolds, 106 Mass. 31 ; Greer v. Van Meter, 54 N. J. Eq. 270, 33 Atl. 794; Lattimer v. Liv-ermore, 72 N. Y. 174; Weig-mann v. Jones, 163 Pa. St. 330, 30 Atl. 198. As to air, see Chas-tey v. Ackland (1895) 2 Ch. 389,

1234 Read Property. [Sec. 352

While the owner of land is entitled to have the air diffused over his land free from pollution by any use made of neighboring land, this being a natural right, an infringement of which constitutes a nuisance,25 the owner of the neighboring land may acquire, by grant or prescription, an easement consisting of the right to make such injurious use of his land, or, as it is sometimes said, he may acquire a right to maintain a nuisance involving the pollution of air.26