Case ID: mass_24/html/0030-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Hovey et al. versus Rejoice Newton Administrator, &c.
    Oct. 2d.
    
    In this action, which was covenant upon a lease of waterworks and buildings, with the whole control of the water in the pond, except the right which E. Bangs has to take water in logs to his garden, and a similar right reserved to the lessor, the Court held, that parol evidence was not admissible to prove that in the intention of the parties to the lease, there was likewise an exception of the right which the county of Worcester-had exercised for more than twenty year’s, of occasionally d. verting part of the water for the purpose of cleansing the county gaol, and which diversion was well known to the parties at the time of making the lease.
    
    
      Davis and Mien, for the plaintiffs,
    to show that the evidence was inadmissible, cited Paine v. M'Intier, 1 Mass. R. 69 ; Revere v. Leonard, ibid. 91 ; Howe v. Bass, 2 Mass. R. 380.
    
      Newton, contra,
    
    cited Leland v. Stone, 10 Mass. R 459.
    
      
       A pre-existing right to pass over land conveyed t; take water il-om a spring in it, is a breach of the covenant against incumbrances. Harlow v. Thomas, 15 Pick. 68; Mitchell v. Warner, 5 Connect. R. 497. So is the existence of a public highway. Kellogg v. Ingersoll, 2 Mass. R. 97 ; Hubbard v Norton, 10 Connect R. 431; Pritchard v. Atkinson, 3 N. Hampsh. R. 335. And evidence is not admissible to show that the grantee knew of the existence of the easement. Harlow v. Thomas, 15 Pick. 68; Hubbard v Norton, 10 Connect. R. 431. See Townsend v. Weld, 8 Mass. R. 146