In the case of prescriptive easements, the mode and extent of user of the servient tenement permissible are determined, generally speaking, by the mode and extent

32. Grimley v. Davidson, 133 111. 116, 24 N. E. 439; Weigmann v. Jones, 163 Pa. 330, 30 Atl. 198; Reynolds v. Union Sav. Bank, 155 Iowa, 519, 136 N. W. 529.

33. Lengyel v. Meyer, 70 N. J. Eq. 501, 62 Atl. 548; Dunscomb v. Randolph, 107 Tenn. 89, 89 Am. St. Rep. 915, 64 S. W. 21; Stein v. Bernsford, 108 Minn. 177, 121 N. W. 879. Hammann v. Jordan, 129 X. Y. 61, 29 N. E. 294.

34. Graves v. Smith, 87 Ala. 450, 5 L. R. A. 298, 13 Am. St. Rep. 60, 6 So. 308.

35. Post Sec. 517.

36. Pier v. Salot, - (Iowa), -, 107 N. W. 420.

37. Ingals v. Plamandon, 75 111. 118; Debaun v. Moore, 167 X. Y. 598, 60 N. E. 1110.

In Koolbeck v. Baughn, 126 Iowa, 194, it was held that in view of a statutory provision that the builder of the wall shall insert flues at the request of the other, such other, having failed to make such request, cannot utilize flues placed in the wall by the builder, though they extend over the limits of his lot.

38. See Hammann v. Jordau, 129 N. Y. 61, 29 N. E. 294; De Baun v. Moore, 167 N. Y. 598, 60 N. E. 1110.

Of the user during the prescriptive period.39 Accordingly a prescriptive right to divert or pollute water enables one to divert or pollute it to the extent to which the diversion or pollution extended during such period,40 and one having a prescriptive right to overflow another's land can overflow it to the extent to which he was accustomed to overflow it during the prescriptive period.40a But a question of very considerable difficulty may arise by reason of the assertion, by the person entitled to the easement, of a right of user of the same general character and extent as the prescriptive user, but varying in some degree therefrom. This matter is considered elsewhere in connection with the subject of prescription.40b