Odger's English Common Law

566 DISTURBANCE OF EASEMENTS, &C.
but only in him as the owner of that land and so long as he
owns it. 1
If he sells that piece of land, the right will pass
along with it to the purchaser and may no longer be exer-
cised by the former owner. It is "appurtenant " to the land
and "runs with it;" it is in technical language an " incorporeal
hereditament." The land to which the right is thus attached
is called the dominant tenement ; the land over which the
easement is exercised is called the servient tenement,
Should these two tenements subsequently become the
property of the same owner, the easement disappears.
In order to succeed in an action, for the disturbance or
obstruction of an easement, it is necessary for the plaintiff to
establish three things :
—
(i.) that he is the owner of the dominant tenement
(ii.) that he or his predecessors in title as owners of the
dominant tenement acquired the right in question
(a) by express grant
;
(b) by a grant implied from or written into an express
grant of the land itself
(c) by prescription at common law
(d) by presumption of a grant made since 1189 and
subsequently, lost ; or
(e) by prescription under the Prescription Act, 1832 ;
(iii.) that the defendant has disturbed or obstructed the
plaintiff in the exercise of his right. .
It is not necessary that the plaintiff should have suffered
any pecuniary loss, although such evidence may, of course,
be given to increase the amount of the verdict. Actual
damage need not be shown if the defendant is proved to have
violated the right of the plaintiff.
(i.) The ownership and occupation will be proved by the
plaintiff as in an action of trespass. It is necessary to clearly
define the tenement to which the easement is attached.
" There can be no such thing according to our law, or
according to the civil law, as what I may term an easement
1 See the remarks of Willes, J., in Bailey v. Stevens (1862), 12 C. B. N. S. at
pp. 110—112, and Berry v. Sanders, [1919] 1 K. B. 223.
;
;
;