A right of way over another's land may be acquired by prescription,25 and the doctrine is perhaps more frequently applied in this connection than in any other. That there were, during the prescriptive period, gates across the way, does not preclude the acquisition

Maple & Co., (1893) 3 Ch. 48, 63; Ivimey v. Stocker, L. R. 1 Ch. App. 396; Fear v. Morgan, (1906) 2 Ch. 406. 22a. Ante, Sec. 350.

23. Gordon v. Taunton, 126 Mass. 349; Deerfield v. Connecticut R. R., 144 Mass. 325, 11 N. E. 105; Smith v. Sedalia, 152 Mo. 283, 48 L. R. A. 711, 53 S. W. 907.

24. Comm v. Newbury, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 59; Sale v. Pratt, 19

Pick. (Mass.) 191; Green v. Chelsea, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 71; Hill v. Lord, 48 Me. 83.

25. See, e. g. Cheney v. O'brien, 69 Cal. 199, 10 Pac. 479; Everedge v. Alexander, 75 Ga. 858; Talbott v. Thorn, 91 Ky. 417, 16 S. W. 88; Jones v. Percival, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 485, 16 Am. Dec. 415; Garnett v. Slater. 56 Mo. App. 207; Arnold v. Cornman, 50 Pa. St. 361.

The right to appropriate the water of a stream in excess of one's natural right may be acquired by prescription as against lower riparian proprietors 28 The right to dam or obstruct the water of a stream so as to flood the land of another may also be thus acquired,23 as may the right to pollute the water,30 or to control or change the flow.31 One may also acquire by prescription the right to maintain an aqueduct,32 or a

26. Johnson v. Stayton, 5 Harr. (Del.) 448; Smith v. Roath, 238 111. 247, 87 N. E. 414; Moll v. Hagerbaumer, 98 Neb. 555, 153 N. W. 560; Demuth v. Amweg, 90 Pa. St. 181.

27. Post, Sec. 519, note 80.

28. Tyler v. Wilkinson, 4 Mason, 397, Fed., Cas. No. 14312; Coonradt v. Hill, 79 Cal. 587, 21 Pac. 1099; Arroyo Ditch & Water Co. v. Baldwin, 155 Cal. 280, 100 Pac. 874: Kuhlman v. Hecht, 77 111. 570; Fankboner v. Coid-r 127 Ind. 164, 26 N. E. 766; Barnes v. Haynes, 13 Gray (Mass.) 188, 74 Am. Dec. 629; Whitney v, Wheeler Cotton-mills, 151 Mass 396, 7 L. R. A. 613, 24 N. E. 774; Smith v. Putnam, 62 N. H. 369; Shreve v. Voorhees, 3 N. J. Eq. 25; Krier's Private Road, 73 Pa. St. 109; Horn v. Miller, 142 Pa. St. 557, 21 Atl. 994; Olney v. Fenner, 2 R. I. 211, 57 Am. Dec. 711; Ferrell v. Ferrell, 1 Baxt. (Tenn.) 329; Boyd v. Woolwine, 40 W. Va. 282. 21 S. E. 1020.

29. Atlanta & B. Air Line Ry v. Wood, 160 Ala. 657. 49 So. 426; Vail v. Mix. 74 111. 127; Wallace v. Wlnfield, 96 Kan. 35, 149 Pac. 693; Williams v Nelson, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 141; Turner v.

Hart, 71 Mich. 128, 15 Am. St. Rep. 243, 38 N. W. 890; Mueller v. Fruen, 36 Minn. 273, 30 N. W. 886; Alcorn v. Sadler, 71 Miss. 634, 42 Am. St. Rep. 484, 14 So. 444; Hammond v. Zehner, 21 N. Y. 118; Emery v. Raleigh & G. R. Co., 102 N. C. 209, 11 Am. St. Rep. 727, 9 S. E. 139; Mcgeorge v Hoffman, 133 Pa. St. 381, 19 Atl. 413; Shearer v. Hutterische Bruder Gemeinde, 28 S. D. 509, 134 N. W. 63; Haas v. Choussard, 17 Tex. 588; Perrin v. Garfield, 37 Vt. 304.

30. Crossley v. Lightowler, 2 Ch. App. 478; Crosby v. Bessey, 49 Me. 539; Holsman v. Boiling Spring Bleaching Co., 14 N. J. Eq. 335; Gladfelter v. Walker, 40 Md. 1; Jones v. Crow, 32 Pa. St. 398.

31. Brace v. Yale, 10 Allen (Mass.) 441; Dyer v. Cranston Print Works Co., 22 R. I. 506, 48 Atl. 791.

32. Churchill v Louie. 135 Cal. 608, 67 Pac. 1052; Frederick v. Dickey, 91 Cal. 358, 27 Pac. 742; \V;.tkins v. Peck. 13 N.h. 370; Coventon v. Seufert, 23 Ore. 548, 32 Pac. 508; French Hoek v. Hugo, L. R. 10 App Cas. 336.

Drain,33 over another's land and likewise the right to discharge drainage thereon.34

One may, it has been held, acquire by prescription a right to take seaweed from another's land,35 or a right to fish thereon.36 Likewise a prescriptive right to take water,37 or ice,38 from another's land has been recognized. A profit a prendre can, however, it has been said, be acquired by prescription only as appurtenant to a dominant tenement or, as it is technicallv expressed, the party must prescribe in a que estate.39

Among other prescriptive rights which have been judicially recognized are the right to have a division fence maintained by the owner of adjoining land,40 the

33. Alderman v. New Haven, 81 Conn. 137, 18 L. R. A. (N. S) 74, 70 Atl. 626; Earl v. De Hart, 12 N. J. Eq. 280, 72 Am. Dec. 395; Beasley v. Engstrom, 31 Idaho, 14, 168 Pac. 1145; Pyott v. State, 170 Ind. 118, 83 N. E. 737; Pascal v. Hynes, 170 Iowa, 121, 152 N. W. 26; White v. Chapin, 12 Allen (Mass.) 516; Shaughnessey v. Leary, 162 Mass. 108, 38 N. E. 197; Mccracken v. Macneal, 169 Mich. 414, 135 N. W. 461; Ramsdale v. Foote, 55 Wis. 557, 13 N. W. 557; Wilkins v. Nicolai, 99 Wis. 178, 74 N. W. 103.

34. Cotton v. Pocasset Mfg. Co., 13 Mete. (Mass.) 429; Chapel v. Smith. 80 Mich. 100, 45 N. W. 69; Seigmund v. Tyner, 52 Ind. App. 581, 101 N. E. 20; Peacock v. Stinchcomb, 189 Mich. 301, 155 N. W. 349.

35. Hill v. Lord, 48 Me. 83.

36. Turner v. Hebron, 61 Conn. 175, 14 L. R. A. 386, 22 Atl. 951; Melvin v. Whiting, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 295, 20 Am. Dec. 524, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 188; Mcfarlin v.

Essex Co., 10 Cush. (Mass.) 304; Cobb v. Davenport, 32 N. J. L. 369. Compare Tinicum Fishing Co. v. Carter, 61 Pa. St. 21.

37. Rollins v. Blackden, 112 Me. 459, Ann. Cas. 1917A 875, 92 Atl. 521; Kennedy v. Niles Water Supply Co., 173 Mich. 474, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 836, 139 N. W. 241; Fraser v. Nerney, 89 Vt. 257, 95 Atl. 501; Mason v. Yearwood, 58 Wash. 276, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1158, 108 Pac. 608. There may be a prescriptive right to take water from another's aqueduct. Cole v. Bradbury, 86 Me. 380, 29 Atl. 1097; Kearney v. Westchester, 199 Pa. 392, 49 Atl. 227.

38. Hoag v. Place, 93 Mich. 450, 18 L. R. A. 39, 53 N. W. 617; Hinckel v. Stevens, 35 N. Y. App. Div. 5, 54 N. Y. Supp. 457.

39. Grimstead v. Marlowe, 4 Term Rep. 717; Merwin v. Wheeler, 41 Conn. 14; Beach v. Morgan, 67 N. H. 529, 68 Am. St. Rep. 6S2. 41 Atl. 349; Washburn, Easements (4th Ed.) 18.