Wentworth v. Philpot
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for obstructing the plaintiff’s right to take water from a well on the defendant’s land, which right the plaintiff claims is appurtenant to the premises occupied by him. Facts found by the court. In 1864 one Dore, being the owner of the land now owned by the plaintiff, purchased one undivided third of the Philpot lot, in which the well is located.
Read the full summary
Case, for obstructing the plaintiff’s right to take water from a well on the defendant’s land, which right the plaintiff claims is appurtenant to the premises occupied by him. Facts found by the court. In 1864 one Dore, being the owner of the land now owned by the plaintiff, purchased one undivided third of the Philpot lot, in which the well is located. In 1868 he conveyed his interest in the Philpot lot to the Somersworth Savings-Bank, then the owner of the other two thirds, by a quitclaim deed, which contained this stipulation : “ It is agreed that said Dore shall have the privilege of…
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
If the right of drawing water, reserved by Dore, was an easement in gross, it has not been conveyed to the plaintiff. It was not reserved as appurtenant to, or part and parcel of, the Dore lot, nor is there any evidence that it is essential to its beneficial enjoyment. Garrison v. Rudd, 19 Ill. 558; Ackroyd v. Smith, 10 C. B. 164, 187.
If the right claimed by the plaintiff could pass by implication as an easement of necessity, like a way of necessity (a point on which we express no opinion), the fact of necessity is not found. The right claimed might be convenient and useful for the plaintiff,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Garrison v. RuddIllinois Supreme Court · 1858
- Grubb v. GuilfordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
3Cited by3 opinions
- Batchelder v. State Capital BankSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1890
- Sandford v. BossSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1912
- Goudie v. FisherSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1920