74 CLAIM TO SPEING OF WATEE. 



if he meant to reserve the power of revoking such licence after it was 

 carried into clfect, that he did not expressly reserve that right when he 

 granted the licence, or limit it as to duration. Indeed, the person who 

 authorizes the weir to be erected, becomes in some sense a party to the 

 actual erection of it, and cannot afterwards complain of the result of 

 an act which he himself contributed to effect. Upon principle, there- 

 fore, we think the licence in the present case, after it was executed, was 

 not couutcrmandablc by the person who gave it, and consequently that 

 the present action cannot be maintained. And upon authority this case 

 appears to be already decided by that of Winter r. BrochceU, which rests 

 on the judgment in ]yehh v. Paternoslcr. "We have no reason to doubt 

 the authority of that case, confirmed as it has been by the case of 

 Taylor v. Waters in this Court, and recognized as law in the judgment 

 of Mr. Justice Bayteij in the case of Hew tins v. Shipjxim.'" 



In Coclcer v. Couycr the plaintiff, a brewer, claimed to bo entitled to 

 the benefit of certain water arising from a spring in defendant's close, 

 and flowing through a drain that he had cut, with the verbal consent of 

 the then tenant and the defendant. It was ruled that he could not 

 recover, and that a verbal licence was not sufficient to confer an casement 

 of having a drain in the land of another, to convey water, and that such 

 licence may be revoked though it has been acted upon. The Court of 

 Exchequer considered " that with regard to the question of licence, the 

 case of Hctclins v. Shippam is decisive, to show that an easement like 

 this cannot be conferred unless ly deed, nor has the plaintiff acquired 

 any other title to the water. In order to confer a title by possession, 

 it ought to appear that he has enjoyed it for twenty years, whereas here 

 he had only done so for eighteen. The mere entry into the close of 

 another, and cutting a drain there, and conveying water from a spring 

 rising there, cannot confer a title." Where the owner of-M:wo or more 

 adjoining houses sells one of them, the purchaser of such house is, 

 without any exj)rcss reservation or grant, entitled to the henefit of all drains 

 from his house, and is, on the other hand, subject to all the drains 

 necessary for the enjoyment of the adjoining house. Such necessity is 

 to be considered with reference to the time of the conveyance as matters 

 then stood, without alteration, and without reference to whether any 

 other outlet could be made for the drainage. And ^xt curiam, " It was 

 the defendant's own fault that he did not ascertain what easements the 

 owner of the adjoining house possessed at the time of the purchase." 

 {Pyer v. Carter.) 



A clause in a lease of land from the plaintiff to the defendant re- 

 served to the plaintiff, in Lee y. Stevenson, power to enter upon the 

 demised land, and to dig and make a covered sewer or watercourse 



