There are many cases to the effect that an easement is extinguished by "abandonment" thereof, by which is meant that a nonuser thereof, together with other circumstances, may, as showing an intention to make no further use of it, terminate the easement.61 The question whether there has been such an abandonment is in each case a quesland, to assert that there was appurtenant to this latter land an easement upon the land first conveyed. Hodges v. Goodspeed, 20 R. I. 537, 40 Atl. 373.

58. Co. Litt. 264b; Gale, Easements, 482; Pue v. Pue, 4 Md. Ch. 386. That it must be in writing, see Erb v. Brown, 69 Pa. 216.

59. Post, Sec. 377.

60. Dyer v. Sanford, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 395, 43 Am. Dec. 399. Glenn v. Davis, 35 Md. 208, 6 Am. Rep. 389; Welsh v. Taylor, 134 N. Y. 450, 18 L. R. A. 535, 31 N. E. 896; Robert v. Thompson, 16 N. Y. Misc. 638, 40 N. Y. Supp. 754.

61. Moore v. Rawson, 3 Barn. & C. 332; Stein v. Dahm, 96 Ala. 481, 11 So. 597; Arnold v. Roup, 61 Colo. 316, 157 Pac. 206; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Cella, 88 Conn. 515, 91 Atl. 972; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Covington, 2 Bush (Ky.) 526; Fitzpatrick v. Boston, & M. R. R., 84 Me. 33, 24 Atl. 432; Stewart v. May, 119 Md. 10, 85 Atl. 957; Canny v Andrews, 123 Mass. 155; King v. Murphy, 140 Mass. 254, 4 N. E. 566. Jones v. Van Bochove, 103 Mich. 98, 61 N. E. 342; Snell v. Levitt, 110 N. Y. 595, 1 L. R. A. 414, 18 N. E. 370; Welsh v. Taylor, 134 N. Y. 450, 18 L. R. A. 535, 31 N. E. 896; Willey v. Norfolk Southern R. Co., 96 N. C. 408; Faulkner v. Rocket, 33 R. I. 152, 80 Atl. 380; Taylor v. Hampton, 4 Mccord (S. C.) 96, 17 Am. Dec. 710; Monaghan v. Memphis Fair & Exposition Co., 95 Tenn. 108, 31 S. W. 497. Brown v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 36 Utah, 257, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 86, 102 Pac. 740; Philips v. Coumbe, 90 Wash. 543, 156 Pac. 535; Stenz v. Ma-honey, 114 Wis. 117, 89 N. W. 819.

1378 Real Property. [ Sec. 377 tion of fact.02 And it must be established, it has been said, by "evidence clear and unequivocal of acts decisive and conclusive."63 Even the fact that the owner of the dominant tenement erects or alters a structure in such a way as to render the exercise of the easement for the time difficult or impossible does not necessarily involve an abandonment of the easement.64

It has been stated, with more or less explicit-ness, that the underlying theory of the abandonment of an easement is that of the inference or implication, from the circumstances of the case, of an express release of the easement,65 but such a theory does not

62. Smith v. Worn, 93 Cal. 206, 28 Pac. 944; Holmes v. Jones, 80 Ga. 659, 7 S. E. 168; Vogler v. Geiss, 51 M'd. 407; King v. Murphy, 140 Mass. 254, 4 N. E. 566. Willets v. Langhaar, 212 Mass. 573, 99 N. E. 466; Leach v. Philadelphia, H. & P. R. Co., 258 Pa. 522, 102 Atl. 175; Poison v. Ingraham, 22 S. C. 541; Southern Ry.-carolina Division, v. Howell, 89 S. C. 391, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 1070, 71 S. E. 972; Cook v. Bath Corporation, L. R. 6 Eq. 177.

63. Adams v. Hodgkins, 109 Me. 361, 42 L. R. A. (N. S ) 741, 84 Atl. 530. And for statements of a more or less similar character, see Dyer v. Sanford, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 395, 43 Am. Dec. 306; Eddy v. Chace, 140 Mass. 471, 5 N. E. 306; Lagorio v. Lew-enberg, 226 Mass. 464, 115 N. E. 979; Hennessy v. Murdock, 137 N. Y. 317, 33 N. E. 330; Vogler v. Geiss, 51 M'd. 407; Raritan Water Power v. Veghte, 21 N. J. Eq 463.; Daniel v. Doughty, 120 Va. 853, 92 S. E. 848.

64. Brunthaver v. Talty, 31 App. Dist. Col. 134; Hay ward v.

Spokesfield, 100 Mass. 491. Vinton v. Greene, 158 Mass. 426, 33 N. E. 607; Faulkner v. Duff, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 227, 20 S. W. 227; Mckee v. Perchment, 69 Pa. 342. Compare Taylor v. Hampton, 4 Mccord (S. Car.) 96, 17 Am. Dec. 710; Tuttle v. Sowadzki, 41 Utah, 501, 126 Pac. 959.

As to the question of the abandonment of an easement of light, see Salem City Nat. Bank v. Van Meter, 59 N. J. Eq. 32, 45 Atl. 280, 61 N. J. Eq. 674, 47 Atl. 1131; Johnson v. Hahne, 61 N. J. Eq. 438, 49 Atl. 5; Fowler v. Wick, 74 N. J. Eq. 603, 70 Atl. 682, and the many English cases cited in Gale, Easements, and Goddard, Easements.

65. See Norbury v. Meade, 3 Bligh. 242; Lovell v. Smith, 3 C. B. N. S. 120, 127; Doe d. Put-land v. Hilder, 2 Barn. & Aid. 782; Winham v. Mcguire, 51 Ga. 578; Adams v. Hodgkins, 109 Me. 361, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 741, 84 Atl. 530; Brown v. Trustees of Methodist Episcopal Church, 37 Md. 108; Suydam v. Dunton, 84 Hun (N. Y.) 506, 32 N. Y. Supp.

Appear to have had any practical result on the course of decision. Occasionally, it has been stated that an indication of intention to abandon the easement is not effective to extinguish the easement unless the owner of the servient tenement is induced thereby to make expenditures or otherwise to alter his position, thus in effect making the question of abandonment a question of estoppel.66 But this is evidently not in accord with the great weight of authority. The fact, however, that the person asserting the abandonment was induced, by the course of action of the owner of the easement, to assume that there was an intention to abandon the easement, and to make improvements on the strength of this assumption, would presumably operate in favor of a finding of abandonment, or as it might otherwise be expressed, the owner of the easement might, in such case, be regarded as estopped to assert the easement.66a

Nonuser in itself does not terminate an easement acquired by grant,07 and, as above stated, it is at most merely one of the facts from which an abandonment may be inferred. The fact that the nonuser continues

333; 3 Kent, Comm. 448; God-dard, Easements, 555. The whole theory of extinguishment of easements by abandonment is severely criticized in 11 Columbia Law Rev. at p. 777.

66. See Smith v. Worn, 93 Cal. 206, 28 Pac. 944; Vance v. Adams (Ky.) 112 S. W. 927; Day v. Walden, 46 Mich. 575, 10 N. W. 26; Scott v. Moore, 98 Va. 668, 81 Am. St. Rep. 749, 37 S. E. ?42.

66a. See Trimble v. King, 131 Ky. 1, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 880, 114 S. W. 317; Patterson v. Chambers' Power Co., 81 Ore. 328, 159 Pac. 568; Andrews v. Cohen, 221 N.

Y. 148, 116 N. E. 862. And post, Sec. 378.

67. Moore v. Rawson, 3 Barn. & C. 332; Smith v. Worn, 93 Cal. 206, 28 Pac. 994; Petitpierre v. Maguire, 155 Cal. 242, 100 Pac. 690; Dewire v. Hanley, 79 Conn. 454, 65 Atl. 573; Ford v. Harris, 95 Ga. 97, 22 S. E. 144; Hoffthen v. Mede, 226 111. 320, 80 N. E. 893; Edgerton v. Mcmullan, 55 Kan. 90, 39 Pac. 1021; Adams v. Hodgkins, 109 Me. 361. 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 741, 84 Atl. 530; Dana v. Valentine, 2 Allen (Mass.) 128; Hayford v. Spokesfield, 100 Mass. 491; Butterneld v. Reed, 160 Mass. 361, 35 N. E. 1128; Murphy for the prescriptive period is immaterial,68 in the absence of any adverse acts on the part of the owner of the land.69

There are dicta to the effect that an easement acquired by prescription, as distinguished from one acquired by express grant, may be extinguished by non-user alone,69 though in but one case, apparently,70 is there a direct decision to this effect, and such a distinction has been doubted, apparently with good reason.71

Chair Co. v. American Radiator Co., 172 Mich. 14, 137 N. W. 791; Dulce Realty Co. v. Staed Realty Co., 254 Mo. 417, 151 S. W. 415; Dill v. Board of Education of City of Camden, 47 N. J. Eq. 421, 10 L. R. A. 276, 20 Atl. 739; Welsh v. Taylor, 134 N. Y. 450, 18 L. R. A. 535, 31 N. E. 896; Willey v. Norfolk S. R. Co., 96 X. C. 408, 1 S. E. 446; Hoffman v. Dorris, 83 Ore. 625, 163 Pac. 972; Bombaugh v. Miller, 82 Pa. St. 203; Sweezy v. Vallette, 37 R. I. 51, 90 Atl. 1078; Boyd v. Hunt, 102 Tenn. 495, 52 S. W. 131; Scott v. Moore, 98 Va. 668, 81 Am. St. Rep. 749, 37 S. E. 342; Mccue v. Bellingham Bay Water Co., 5 Wash. 156, 31 Pac. 461.

68. Ward v. Ward, 7 Exch. 838; Nichols v. Peck, 70 Conn. 439, 40 L. R. A. 81, 66 Am. St. Rep. 122, 39 Atl. 803; Ford v. Harris, 95 Ga. 97, 22 S. E. 144; Edgerton v. Momullan, 55 Kan. 90, 39 Pac. 1021; Pratt v. Sweet-ser, 68 Me. 344; King v. Murphy, 140 Mass. 254, 4 N. E. 566; Butter-field v. Reed, 160 Mass. 361, 35 N. E. 1128; Day v. Walden, 46 Mich. 575, 10 N. W. 26; Wheeler v. Wilder, 61 N. H. 2; Welsh v.

Taylor, 134 N. Y. 450, 18 L. R. A. 535, 31 N. E. 896; Lindeman v. Lindsey, 69 Pa. St. 93, 8 Am. Rep. 219; Mason v. Horton, 67 Vt. 266, 48 Am. St. Rep. 817, 31 Atl. 291.

But non user for the prescriptive period has occasionally been regarded as creating a rebuttable presumption of intention to abandon. Pratt v. Sweetser, 68 Me. 344; Dyer v. Dupui, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 584; Hunter v. West, 172 N. C. 160, 90 S. E. 130. See Reg v. Chorley, 12 Q. B. 515; 11 Hals-bury's Laws of England, 278; Goddard, Easements (6th Ed.), 560.

69. Kuecken v. Voltz, 110 I11. 264; Adams v. Hodgkins, 109 Me. 361, 84 Atl. 530; Wooster v. Fiske, 115 Me. 161, 98 Atl. 378. Browne v. Baltimore M. E. Church, 37 Md. 108; Arnold v. Stevens, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 106, 35 Am. Dec. 305; Hayford v. Spokesfield, 100 Mass. 491; Smyles v. Hastings, 22 X. Y. 217; Pope v. O'hara, 48 N. Y. 446; Nitzell v. Paschall, 3 Rawle (Pa.) 76. See Curran v. City of Louisville, 83 Ky. 628; Willey v. Norfolk R. Co., 96 N. C. 408, 1 S. E. 446.

In a few states this asserted distinction has been in effect embodied in a statutory provision that a servitude acquired by enjoyment may be extinguished by disuse thereof for the period prescribed for acquiring title by enjoyment.72

According to a few decisions, an easement cannot be extinguished by abandonment, unless there has been a failure to use the easement for a period equal to that necessary for the creation of an easement by prescription,73 but this view has not been generally adopted.74