In addition to easements of the classes above referred to, numerous

100 Pa. 84; Dickens v. Cave Hill Cemetery Co., 93 Ky. 385, 20 S. W. 282. That interments have been actually made has been regarded as precluding a sale of the lot. Thompson v. Hickey, 8 Abb. N. Cas. 159, 59 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 434; Schroeder v. Wanzor, 36 Hun. (N. Y.) 423.

97. Dwenger v. Geary, 113 Ind. 106, 14 N. E. 903; Farelly v. Metairie Cemetery Ass'n, 44 La. Ann. 28, 10 So. 386.

98. Rosehill Cemetery Co. v. Hopkinson, 114 111. 209, 29 N. E. 685; Mount Moriah Cemetery Ass'n v. Com., 81 Pa. St. 235, 22 Am. Rep. 743; Silverwood v. Lat-robe, 68 Md. 620, 13 Atl. 161.

99. Partridge v. First Independent Church, 39 Md. 631; Page v. Symonds, 63 N. H. 17, 56 Am. Rep. 481; Richards v. North West Dutch Church, 32 Barb. (N. Y.)

42; Went v. Methodist Protestant Church, 80 Hun. 266, 150 N. Y. 577, 44 N. E. 1129; Price v. Methodist Episcopal Church, 4 Ohio 515; Kincaid's Appeal, 66 Pa. St. 411, 5 Am. Rep. 377; Craig v. First Presbyterian Church, 88 Pa. St. 42, 32 Am. Rep. 417.

1. That he cannot maintain ejectment, see Hancock v. Mc-avoy, 151 Pa. 460, 31 Am. St. Rep. 774, 18 L. R. A. 781, 25 Atl. 47; Stewart v. Garrett, 119 Ga. 386, 64 L. R. A. 99, 100 Am. St. Rep. 179, 46 S. E. 427.

2. Bessemer Land, etc., Co. v. Jenkins, 111 Ala. 135, 56 Am. St. Rep. 26, 18 So. 565; Pulsifer v. Douglass, 94 Me. 556, 53 L. R. A. 238, 48 Atl. 118; Smith v. Thompson, 55 Md. 5, 39 Am. Rep. 409; Meagher v. Driscoll, 99 Mass. 281, 96 Am. Dec. 759; Thirkfield v. Mountain View Cemetery Ass'n, other easements have been judicially recognized. Among such may be mentioned the privilege of maintaining upon another's land a stairway,3 a reservoir,4 a signboard,5 of utilizing another's dock,6 of placing a sign on a building,7 of placing clothes lines8-9 on or over another's land, of having one's building overhang another's land,10 of swinging shutters thereover,11 and even of extending one's building or porch upon another's land.12 Also a privilege of placing logs and lumber,13 or mer12 Utah, 76, 41 Pac. 564; Holl-man v. Platteville, 101 Wis. 94, 70 Am. St. Rep. 899, 76 N. W. 1119.

3. Moon v. Mills, 119 Mich. 298, 75 Am. St. Rep. 390, 77 N. W. 926.

4. Riefler & Sons v. Wayne Storage Water Power Co., 232 Pa. 282, 81 Atl. 300.

5. Rex v. St. Pancras Assessment Committee, 2 Q. B. D. 581, 586; Borough Bill Posting Co. v. Levy, 144 N. Y. App. Div. 784, 129 N. Y. Supp. 740.

6. Sargent v. Ballard, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 251; Nichols v. Boston, 98 Mass. 42, 93 Am. Dec. 132. Or an easement of utilizing a canal basin. International Pottery Co. v. Richardson, 63 N. J. L. 248, 43 Atl. 692.

7. Moody v. Steggles, 12 Ch. D. 261; Levy v. Louisville Gunning System, 121 Ky. 510, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 359, 89 S. W. 528.

8-9. Drewell v. Towler, 3 Barn. & Ad. 735; Steiner v. Peter-man, 71 N. J. Eq. 101, 63 Atl. 1102.

10. Ingals v. Plamondon, 75 111. 118; Taylor v. Wright, 76 N. J. Eq. 121, 79 Atl. 433; First Baptist Society v. Wetherell, 34 R. I.

155, 82 Atl. 1061.

11. Richardson v. Pond, 15 Gray (Mass.) 387.

12. Ensign v. Colt, 75 Conn. Ill, 52 Atl. 829, 946; Wilson v. Riggs, 27 App. D. C. 550; Jeffrey v. Winter, 190 Mass. 90, 76 N. E. 282; Smith v. Lockwood, 100 Minn. 221, 110 N. W. 980; Taylor v. Wright, 76 N. J. Eq. 121, 99 Atl. 433; Ruffin v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 151 N. C. 330, 66 S. E. 317.

So an easement of planning and maintaining a mounment on an individuals land was recognized in Wilson v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Gloucester County, 83 N. J. Eq. 545, 90 Atl. 1021.

Compare Littlefield v. Maxwell, 31 Me. 134; Cortelyou v. Van Brundt, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 357, to the effect that any right inverting exclusive occupancy is necessarily more than an easement. And see references to English authorities to this effect, Post, Sec. 361, note 34.

13. Pollard v. Raines, 2 Cusli. (Mass.) 191; Gurney v. Ford, 2 Allen (Mass.) 576; Lacy v. Green, 84 Pa. 514.

Chandise,14 on another's land, of tieing horses,15 mixing manure,16 and storing rolling chairs for hire17 thereon, of placing appliances to control the flow of water,18 or to catch fish.19

In a few states the statutes name certain easements which may be imposed upon land in favor of other land, and also certain easements which may be so imposed without making them appurtenant to other land.20-21 These provisions do not appear to have had any substantial effect as regards the law of easements in those states.

There are to be found occasional judicial expressions to the effect that new species of easements will not be recognized,22 that, in other words, "incidents of a novel kind cannot be attached to property at the fancy or caprice of any owner."23 And this view received practical application in one case in which the court refused to recognize an easement consisting of an exclusive right to float boats on another's canal.24 It cannot be said, however, that the courts have ordinarily shown any disposition thus to restrict the power of the owner of land to subject it to an easement in favor

14. Richardson v. Pond, 15 Gray. (Mass.) 387.

15. Trauger v. Sassaman, 14 Pa. 514; Benham v. Minor, 38 Conn. 252.

16. Pye v. Mumford, 11 Q. B. 666.

17. Goldman v. Beach Front Realty Co., 83 N. J. L. 97, 83 Atl. 777.

18. Wood v. Hewett, 8 Q. B. 913.

19. Rolle v. Whyte, L. R. 3 Q. B. 286; Leconfeld v. Lonsdale, L. R. 5 C. P. 657.

20-21. See California Civ. Code, Sec.Sec. 801, 802; Montana Rev. Codes, 1907, Sec.Sec. 4507, 4508; North Dakota of another, and, as a matter of fact, as appears from the preceding paragraph, they have quite freely allowed incidents of a novel kind to be attached to property in the form of easements, as they have in the form of covenants.

Comp. Laws 1913, Sec.Sec. 5330, 5331; Oklahoma Rev. Laws 1910, Sec.Sec. 6623, 6624; South Dakota Civil Code 1910, Sec.Sec. 267, 268.

22. See Eckert v. Peters, 55 N. J. Eq. 379, 36 Atl. 491.

23. This is in effect the statement of Brougham L. C. in Kep-pel v. Bailey, 2 Myl. & K. p. 535, made in connection with the right to enforce an affirmative covenant as against a transferee of the covenantor. It is quoted with approval in Ackroyd v. Smith, 10 C. B. 164, and Hill v. Tupper, 2 Hurlst. & C. 121.

24. Hill v. Tupper, 2 Hurlst. & C. 121.