An ease ment is, in effect, as a general rule, extinguished as to a purchaser for value of the servient tenement, if

E. 571; Butterfield v. Reed, 160 Mass. 361, 35 N. E. 1128; Day v. Walden, 46 Mich. 575, 10 N. W. 26; Dill v. Board of Education of City of Camden, 47 N. J. Eq. 421, 10 L. R. A. 276, 20 Atl. 739; Andrus v. National Sugar Refining Co., 183 N. Y. 580, 76 N. E. 1088; State v. Suttle, 115 N. C. 784, 20 S. E. 725; Lindsey v. Lindeman, 69 Pa. St. 93, 8 Am. Rep. 219; James v. Stevenson (1893), App. Cas. 162. But see Baugh v. Arnold, 123 Md. 6, 91 Atl. 151; Hunter v. West, 172 N.

C. 160, 90 S. E. 130

89. Welsh v. Taylor, 134 N. Y. 450, 18 L. R. A. 535, 31 N. E. 896; State v. Pettis, 7 Rich. (S. Car.) 390; Boyd v. Hunt, 102 Tenn. 495, 52 S. W. 131.

89a. Dana v. Smith, 114 Me. 262, 95 Atl. 1034; Compare, Post, Sec. 528.

90. San Francisco v. Calder-wood, 31 Cal. 585, 91 Am. Dec. 542.

91. Goodwin v. Bragaw, 87 Conn. 31, 86 Atl. 668.

He purchases without notice, either actual or constructive,91a of the easement,92 while he takes subject to the easement if he has notice thereof.93

In the case of an easement created by express grant, the right of the innocent purchaser for value of the servient tenement to hold the land free from the burden of the easement is obviously by reason of the recording laws, which invalidate an unrecorded conveyance as against a purchaser without notice,94 and the same is true of an easement created by "implied grant" so called,95 which is properly, as before explained, an express grant extended by construction to include an easement appurtenant to the land conveyed. In the case of a prescriplive easement, however, the recording acts, as ordinarily phrased, cannot well apply to protect an innocent purchaser, since they have to do with priorities as between instruments affecting land, while if the easement is prescriptive the question is one of priority as between a claim under an instru91a. Post, Sec. 511.

92. Mesmer v. Uharriet, 174 Cal. 110, 162 Pac. 104; Rives v. Hickey, 1 Macarthur (D. C.) 83; Rome Gaslight Co. v. Meyer-hardt, 61 Ga. 287; Armor v. Pye, 25 Kan. 731; Jobling v. Tuttle, 75 Kan. 351, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 960, 89 Pac. 699; Corning v. Gould, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 531; Taylor v. Millard, 118 N. Y. 244, 6 L. R. A. 667, 23 N. E. 376, affirming 42 Hun, 363; Tise v. Whitaker Harvey Co., 144 N. C. 507; Ricks v. Scott, 117 Va. 370, 84 S. E. 676; Roe v. Walsh, 76 Wash. 148, 135 Pac. 1031, 136 Pac. 1146; Pentland v. Keep, 41 Wis. 490; Taggart v. Warner, 83 Wis. 1, 53 N. W. 33. See Mccann v. Day, 57 111. 101; Ellis v. Bassett. 128 Ind. 118, 25 Am. St. Rep. 421,

Ment and a claim not under an instrument. In one state there are decisions to this effect, that a purchaser of land takes it subject to a prescriptive easement thereon, even though he has no notice, actual or constructive.96 There are on the other hand occasional decisions that the purchaser in such case takes free from the easement, the courts ignoring the consideration that the doctrine of notice, as regards legal rights, is based upon the recording acts and has no existence apart therefrom.97

27 N. E. 344; Wissler v. Hershey, 23 Pt. St. 333.

93. Pollard v. Rebman, 162 Cal. 633, 124 Pac. 235; Ashelford v. Willis, 194 111. 492, 62 N. E. 817; Downey v. Hood, 203 Mass. 4, 89 N. E. 24; Dinneen v. Corporation, etc., 114 Md. 589, 79 Atl. 1021; Murphy Chair Co. v. American Radiator Co., 172 Mich. 14, 137 N. W. 791; Litchfield v. Boogher, 238 Mo. 472, 142 S. W. 302; Reid v. King, 158 N. C. 85, 73 S. E. 168; Shields v. Titus, 46 Ohio St. 528; Patterson v. Chambers' Power Co., 81 Ore. 328, 159 Pac. 568; Little v. Gibb, 57 Wash. 92, 106 Pac. 491; Proud-foot v. Saffle, 62 W. Va. 51, 57 S. E. 256; Forde v. Libby, 22 Wyo. 464, 143 Pac. 1190.

94. Post, Sec. 567.

95. Quinlan v. Noble, 75 Cal. 250, 17 Pac. 69; Ingals v. Plamon-don, 75 111. 118; Shepardson v. Perkins, 58 N. H. 354; Muir v. Cox, 110 Ky. 560, 62 S. W. 723; Havens v. Klein, 51 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 82; Rollo v. Nelson, 34 Utah, 116, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 315, 96 Pac. 315; Hair v. Downing, 96 N. Car. 172, 2 S. E. 520; Eliason v. Grove, 85 Md. 215, 36 Atl. 844; Muse v. Gish, 114 Va. 90, 75 S. E. 764. See also citations, ante,

Sec. 363c, note 80.

96. Johnson v. Knapp, 146 Mass. 70, 15 N. E. 134; Shaugh-nessy v. Leary, 162 Mass. 108, 38 N. E. 197. See cases cited, Post, Sec. 531.

97. Schmidt v. Brown, 226 I11. 590, 80 N. E. 1071; Jobling v. Tuttle, 75 Kan. 351, 9 L. R. A. N. S. 960, 89 Pac. 699; Sparks v. Rogers, 29 Ky. Law Rep. 1170, 97 S. W. 11; Van De Vanter v. Flaherty, 37 Wash. 218, 79 Pac. 794.