Case, for obstructing a sewer running from the plaintiff’s house on her lot to the defendant's barn cellar on his adjoining lot. Verdict for the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the widow, and the defendant is a son, of E. K. Smith, who formerly owned and occupied the land which is now divided into the two lots. The plaintiff’s house and the defendant’s bam are 100 feet apart, and the dividing line is 35 feet from the barn.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1882-12-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1912
3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1
There was no implied assignment to the plaintiff of an easement in the defendant’s lot that would put him to the alternative of abandoning his bam or becoming a manufacturer of manure. It is not and evidently cannot be found that the discharge of her sewage into his cellar is necessary for her use of her house. In some cases of reasonable easement not definitely located by contract or otherwise, there may be a question whether, on a bill in equity, each party can be compelled to bear a part of the expense of an alteration required by a change in the ownership or use of land. But here it does not appear that there is an easement. It is not a matter of law that the division of this land gave the plaintiff a right to have her sewage go into the defendant’s lot, or gave him a right to have it come.
