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 .
As successive adverse possessions of land by different persons may be tacked in order to make up the statutory period, so successive adverse users by different persons may be tacked for the same purpose,59 provided there is a privity or contractual connection between them.60 There is sufficient privity for this purpose, it would seem, when the user is exercised, for the benefit of neighboring land, by successive owners or possessors of such land, between whom there exists some legal relation other than that of disseisor and disseisee.61 One decision,62 apparently to the effect that a grantee of land cannot tack his grantor's user of neighboring land unless the conveyance to him specifically mentions such inchoate right, is based on a misapplication of authorities to the effect that there is no breach of a covenant of title by reason ot the failure of an easement supposed to be appurtenant to the land conveyed unless such easement was specfi-cally mentioned in the conveyance.
J. L. 605; Morris Canal & Bank-ing Co. v. Diamond Mills Paper Co., 73 N. J. Eq. 414, 75 Atl. 1101, aff'g 71 N. J. Eq. 481, 64 Atl. 746; Dickinson v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 87 N. J. L. 264, 93 Atl. 703; Oregon Const. Co. v. Allen Ditch Co., 41 Ore. 209, 69 Pac. 455; Okeson v. Patterson, 29 Pa. St. 22; Mcgeorge v. Hoffman, 133 Pa. St. 381, 19 Atl. 413; Jordan v. Lang, 22 S. C. 159; Ferrell v. Ferrell, 1 Baxt. (Tenn.) 329; Angus v. Dalton,
3 Q. B. Div. 93, per Lush, J.,
4 Q. B. Div., per Thesiger & Cotton, L. J. J. See Rollins v. Blackden, 112 Me. 459, Ann. Cas. 1917A 875, 92 Atl. 521.
Temporary cessation of the use, following upon demand that the use be stopped, has been referred to as tending to show that the use was permissive. St. Martin v. Skamania Boom Co.,
79 Wash. 393, 140 Pac. 355; Eaton v. Swansea Water Works Co., 17 Q. B. 267.
57. Alta Land & Water Co. v. Hancock, 85 Cal., 219, 20 Am. St. Rep. 217, 24 Pac. 645; Bunten v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 50 Mo. App. 414; Workman v. Curran, 89 Pa. St. 226; Cobb v. Smith, 38 Wis. 21.
58. Postlethwaite v. Payne, 8 Ind. 104; Harmon v. Carter. (Tenn.), 59 S. W. 656.
59. Bradley's Fish Co. v. Dudley, 37 Conn. 136; Ross v. Thompson, 78 Ind. 90; Sargent v. Ballard. 9 Pick. (Mass.) 251: Matthys v. First Swedish Church of Boston, 223 Mass. 544, 112 N. E. 228; Leonard v. Leonard. 7 Allen (Mass.) 277; Dodge v. Stacy, 39 Vt. 558.
60. Holland v. Long, 7 Gray (Mass.) 486; Bryan v. City of East St. Louis, 12 111. App. 390.