Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-11-28
RESCRIPTS FROM
THE Law COURT

The following rescripts have been
received from the law court by Clerk
of Courts Charles W. Jones of Kenne-
bee county:
Aroostook County.
John Watson, in equity, VS.. Walter
T. French. Rescript. Cornish. J.
Albion P. Haywood being the owner
of the opera house block on Court
street, in Houlton, and of lot in the
rear on which was a stable, the
stable lot being separated from the
opera house lot by passage way,
connected both buildings with the
Court street main of the Houlton
Water Company on June 6, 1887. This
was done by means of a two inch pipe
which entered the cellar under the
front wall of the opera house, crossed
the cellar on top of the concrete floor
to a point near the rear wall, and
there connected with three fourths
inch pipe. that dropped down under
the rear wall and under the passage
way and came up into the stable.
This was the situation on June Is.
1898, when Haywood conveyed the
rear lot with the stable to the plaintiff
Watson, together with a right of way
in common with the grantor and 9TH
ers over this passagewaysazan and over
another passage way to the street,
and it remained unchanged until July,
1912, a period of nineteen years,
when the defendant as purchaser from
the heir at law of Haywood shut off
the supply to the plaintiffs stable.
On bill in equity praying for an in
junction it is
Held
/. That under the facts Of this
case and under the circumstances and
conditions existing when the deed was
executed, the plaintiff had an implied
grant of the right to have the water
pipes remain as at the time of con-
veyance, or at least. in some situation
equally adapted to conveying water
to the plaintiffs premises; in other
words the plaintiff has an easement
by necessity.
.. That to create such an ease
ment, strict necessity and not mere
convenience is required.
8. That such a strict necessity ex-
lists in this case because a water
supply to the stable from some source
is absolutely necessary, and this is
the only available source.
A. That the plaintiff cannot reach
the main through other land Of his
own and has no rights in the private
way other than. rights Of travel.
5. That the plaintiffs necessity is
not removed by the suggestion that
application should be made to the
Water Company for service, and the
company might take the intervening
land by right of eminent domain and
render the service required.
6. That it is doubtful whether the
company has the legal right under its
charter to condemn the land Of
private individual in order to con-
struct service pipe to one taker.
7. That there is no evidence that
the company would attempt to do this
even If it had the legal right.
s. That a water company is not
compelled to extend its mains at the
request of individual takers.
9. That the fact that the defendant
does not own the source. Of supply
does not affect the plaintiffs rights.
THE plaintiff does not claim an ease
ment in the water itself, but In, the
maintenance of the pipe whereby the
water of a public service corporation
can continue to flow to his premises.
Bill sustained with costs.
Perpetual Injunction to issue.
Decree accordingly. ss1-s
Received Nov. "a, 1914.