KFLCC Kingdom Law 2nd Ed.

409

EASTERLING

EASEMENT

used only at times, and not continuously. Eat on v. Railroad Co., 51 N. H. 504, 12 Am. Rep. 147.— Quasi easement. An "easement," in the proper sense of the word, can only exist ia respect of two adjoining pieces of land occupied by different persons, and can only impose a negative duty on the owner of the servient tenement. Hence an obligation on the owner of land to repair the fence between his and his neighbor's land is not a true easement, but is sometimes called a "quasi easement." Gale, Easem. 516; Sweet.— Secondary easement. One which is appurtenant to the primary or actual easement; every easement includes such "secondary easements," that is, the right to do such things as are necessary for the full enjoy ment of the easement itself. Toothe v. Bryce, 50 N. J. Eq. 589, 25 Atl. 182; North Fork Water Co. v. Edwards, 121 Cal. 662, 54 Pac. 69. In the customs laws of the United States, the term "countries east of the Cape of Good Hope" means countries with which, formerly, the United States ordinarily car ried on commercial intercourse by passing around that cape Powers v. Comley, 101 The name of a royal manor in the county of Kent, England; mentioned in royal grants or patents, as de scriptive of the tenure of free socage. EAST INDIA COMPANY. The East India Company was originally established for prosecuting the trade between England and India, which they acquired a right to carry on exclusively. Since the middle of the last century, however, the company's political af fairs had become ot more importance than their commerce. In 1858, by 21 & 22 Vict. c. 106, the government of the territories of the company was transferred to the crown. Wharton. EASTER. A feast of the Christian church held in memory of our Saviour's resurrection. The Greeks and Latins call it "pascha," (passover,) to which Jewish feast our Easter answers. This feast has been annually cele brated since the time of the apostles, and is one of the most important festivals in the Christian calendar, being that which regu lates and determines the times of all the other movable feasts. Enc. Lond. —Easter-offerings, or Easter-dnes. In English law. Small sums of money paid to the parochial clergy by the parishioners at Easter as a compensation for personal tithes, or the tithe for personal labor; recoverable under 7 & 8 Wm. III. o. 6, before justices of the peace. —Easter term. In English law. One of the four terms of the courts. It is now a fixed term, beginning on the 15th of April and ending on the 8th of May in every year, though some times prolonged so late as the 13th of May, under St. 11 Geo. IV. and 1 Wm. IV. c. 70. From November 2, 1875, the division of the le gal year into terms is abolished so far as con cerns the administration of justice. 3 Steph. Comm. 482-486; Mozley & Whitley. A coin struck by Rich ard II, which is supposed to have given rise to the name of "sterling," as applied to Eng lish money. EAST. U. S. 790, 25 L. Ed. 805. EAST GREENWICH. EASTERXING.

prohibited from doing something otherwise law ful upon his estate, because it will affect the dominant estate, (as interrupting the light and air from the latter by building on the former.) 2 Washb. Heal Prop. 301. Equitable L. Assur. Soc. v. Brennan (Sup.) 24 N. Y. Supp. 788; Pierce v. Keator, 70 N. Y. 447, 26 Am. Rep. 612. They are also either continuous or dis continuous. An easement of the former kind is one that is self-perpetuating, independent of human intervention, as, the flow of a stream, or one which may be enjoyed without any act on the part of the person entitled thereto, such as a spout which discharges the water whenever it rains, a drain by which surface water is car ried off, windows which admit light and air, and the like. Lampman v. Milks, 21 N. Y. 505; Bonelli v. Blakemore, 66 Miss. 136, 5 South. 228, 14 Am. St. Rep. 550; Providence Tool Co. v. Engine Co., 9 R. I. 571. A continuous ease ment is sometimes termed an "apparent" ease ment, and defined as one depending on some artificial structure upon, or natural conforma tion of, the servient tenement, obvious and {>ermanent, which constitutes the easement or s the means of enjoying it. Fetters v. Hum phreys, 18 N. J. Eq. 260; Larsen v. Peterson, 53 N. J. Eq 88, 30 Atl. 1094; Whalen v Land Co , 65 N. J. Law, 206, 47 Atl. 443. Discon tinuous, non-continuous, or non-apparent ease ments are those the enjoyment of which can be had only by the interference of man, as, a right of way or a right to draw water. Outerbridge v. Phelps, 45 N. Y. Super. Ct. 570; Lampman v. Milks, 21 N. Y. 515. This distinction is derived from the French law. Easements are also classed as private or public, the former being an easement the enjoyment of which is restricted to one or a few individuals, while a public easement is one the right to the enjoy ment of which is vested in the public generally or in an entire community; such as an ease ment of passage on the public streets and high ways or of navigation on a stream. Kennelly v Jersey City, 57 N. J. Law, 293, 30 Atl. 531, 26 L. R. A. 281; Nicoll v. Telephone Co., 62 N J. Law, 733, 42 Atl 583, 72 Am. St. Rep. G66. They may also be either of necessity or of convenience. The former is the case where the easement is indispensable to the enjoyment of the dominant estate; the latter, where the ease ment increases the facility, comfort, or con venience of the enjoyment of the dominant es tate, or of some right connected with it. Ease ments are again either appurtenant or in gross. An appurtenant easement is one which is at tached to and passes with the dominant tene ment as an appurtenance thereof; while an easement in gross is not appurtenant to any es tate in land (or not belonging to any person by virtue of his ownership of an estate in land) but a mere personal interest in, or right to use, the land of another. Cadwalader v. Bailey, 17 R. I. 495, 23 Atl 20, 14 L. R. A. 300; Pinkum v. Eau Claire, 81 Wis. 301, 51 N. W. 550; Stovall v. Coggins Granite Co., 116 Ga. 376, 42 S. E. 723 —Equitable easements. The special ease ments created by derivation of ownership of ad jacent proprietors from a common source, with specific .intentions as to buildings for certain purposes, or with implied privileges in regard to certain uses, are sometimes so called. U. S. v. Peachy (D. C.) 36 Fed. 162— Implied ease ments. An implied easement is an easement resting upon the principle that, where the own er of two or more adjacent lots sells a part thereof, he grants by implication to the grantee all those apparent and visible easements which are necessary for the reasonable use of the prop erty granted, which at the time of the grant are used by the owner of the entirety for the benefit of the part granted. Farley v. Howard, S3 Misc. Rep. 57, 68 N. Y. Supp. 159— Inter mittent easement. One which is usable or