The fact that the owner of the easement makes a use of the servient tenement not justified by the character or extent of the easement does not involve the extinguishment or suspension of the easement, although in making such use he is a wrongdoer.30 Equity will, in such case, ordinarily enjoin such an illegal exercise of the easement, without interfering with the proper exercise except in so far as this may be necessary to protect the landowner.

As before stated,31 the fact that, subsequently to the grant of the easement, there is a change in the mode in which the dominant tenement is utilized, so that there results a more constant use of the servient tenement in the exercise of the easement, has not ordinarily been regarded as involving an excessive user of the easement. That is, the grant of the easement is regarded prima facie as not being intended to continue in force only so long as the mode of utilizing the dominant tenement continues unchanged. It might occur, however, that by a reason of a very radical change in the dominant tenement, it becomes impossible to exercise the easement without an excessive user of the servient tenement, and the making of such change might, under some circumstances, be regarded as involving an extinction of the easement by abandonment.31a

29. Cornell Andrews Smelting Co. v. Boston & P. R. Corp., 202 Mass. 585, 89 N. E, 118.

30. Mendell v. Delano, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 176; Mctavish v. Carroll, 13 Md. 429. White's Bank v. Nicholls, 64 N. Y. 65; Walker v. Gerhard, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 116. Deavitt v. Washington County, 75 Vt. 156, 53 Atl. 563. See Mcmillian v. Cronin, 75 N. Y. 474; editorial note 18 Harv. Law Rev. 608.

31. Ante, Sec. 369.

31a. Goddard, Easements (6th Ed.) 547; Gale, Easements (8th Ed.) 521, 528.