EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO SEWER. 75 



through it, in order to convey the waste water from the premises of the 

 plaintiff to the river Witham. In pursuance of this power, the plaintilf 

 did make a covered sewer across the demised land, after which the 

 defendant made a drain from his own premises into the plaintiff's 

 sewer, and through an opening which he made in it, sent in water, &c. 

 from his own premises ; and it was held by the Court of Queen's Bench 

 that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, as by a grant he had a right 

 to the exclusive use of the sewer which he had made under the power 

 reserved to him. And per Curiam, " A man cannot derogate from his 

 own grant. If the grantee had made a sewer of iron, he would liave 

 done no more than he had a right to do under the grant. It is really and 

 substantially the grant of a tube, and from the very nature of the grant, 

 it would appear to be exclusive. Chetham v. Williamson, and Doe v. 

 Wood are distinguishable. As soon as the minerals were detached they 

 belonged to the person who had the new right, and as the plaintiff had 

 a mere licence to get minerals, he had no right to say that that which 

 had been taken was his ; but semhie, he would have had a right of 

 action at the moment the minerals were taken away." (ib.) 



The discussion of Sharp v. Waterhouse and Calvert, in the Court of 

 Queen's Bench, was brought to a question upon the construction of the 

 deed, and whether the covenant ran with the land. The deed between 

 Sharp and the defendants recited that the former was seised of three 

 closes, and that the defendants were the proprietors of a mill and dye- 

 house, from which was produced dye- water and soke, and that defen- 

 dants had agreed with Sharp for leave to make a reservoir in L close 

 for the reception of such dye-water and soke, in order to filter the same, 

 and also a sough or drain for carrying it away from the reservoir ; and 

 in consideration of the premises, and in consideration of being supplied 

 by defendants with pure water, and of receiving for his own use the 

 sediment which might be found in the reservoir and sough, and of the 

 privilege of using such dye-water and soke for manuring his lands, 

 Sharp gave licence to defendants to use the said reservoir and sough, 

 and agreed that he would cleanse the said reservoir, when neces- 

 sary. There was a covenant by defendants with Sharp, his heirs and 

 assigns, that ihey would at all times thereafter, at their own expense, 

 supply from their said reservoir, or from some other source, pure water 

 for the cattle of the owners and occupiers for the time being of the 

 three closes, and that it should be lawful for Sharp to cleanse the 

 reservoir, and also the sough or drain, and to take the sediment 

 away therefrom for his and their own use and benefit. In an action 

 of covenant by the devisees of Sharp against defendants for diverting 

 dye-water and soke produced at the mill, it was held, Coleridge J. diss., 



