This section is from the book "The Law Of Real Property and Other Interests In Land", by Herbert Thorn Dike Tiffany. Also available from Amazon: A Treatise on the Modern Law of Real Property and Other Interests in Land .
52. Post, Sec. '561.
53. Clayton v. County Court, 58 W. Va. 253, 2 L. R. A. N. S. 598, 52 S. E. 103.
54. Allen v. City of Chicago, 176 111 113, 52 N. E. 33; Clayton v. County Court, 58 W. Va. 253, 2 L. R. A. N. S. 598, 52 S. E. 103.
55. Googins v. Boston, & A. R. Co., 155 Mass 505, 30 N. E. 71; Currie v. Bangor, & A. R. Co., 105 Me. 529, 75 Atl. 51.
56. Lewis, Eminent Domain, Sec. 531, note 21.
57. Goddard, Easements, 575; Gale, Easements, 512. Jersey Farm Co. v. Atlanta Realty Co., 164 Cal. 412, 129 Pac. 593; Richards v. Attleborough Branch R. Co., 153 Mass. 120, 26 N. E. 418; Flaten v. Moorehead City, 58 Minn. 324, 59 N. W. 1044; Mcallister v. Deoane, 76 N. C. 57.
Somewhat analagous to the case of an express release is a case in which it was held that one who made a conveyance of land with a covenant of warranty therein was estopped, upon subsequently acquiring adjoining lease must, at common law, like any other release, be under seal.58 Under the doctrine of abandonment of an easement,59 however, as recognized in the modern decisions, it seems that even an oral relinquishment of the easement might be effective.
One who has only a partial or limited interest in the dominant tenement can obviously extinguish the easement by release only as against himself.60