Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/What-rights-may-be-acquired-by-prescription-Continued.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:38:39+00:00

Document:
There are, on the other hand, some easements which cannot be acquired by prescription, owing to the fact that the owner of the land is not in a position to prevent the exercise of the user claimed, or to sue on account thereof, and consequently the fact that he does not do so is no evidence of acquiescence on his part. On this principle it has been decided that the appropriation of an excessive quantity of water from a waterj. L. 498, 24 Atl. 484; Bronson v. Coffin, 108 Mass. 175, 11 Am. Rep. 335; Adams v. Van Alstyne, 25 N. Y. 232.
41. Sturges v. Bridgman, 11 Ch. Div. 852; Dana v. Valentine, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 8.
42. Norwalk Heating & Lighting Co. v. Vernam, 75 Conn. 662, 96 Am. St. Rep. 246, 55 Atl. 168; Cherry v. Stein, 11 Md. 1; Mat-thys v. First Swedish Baptist Church of Boston, 223 Mass. 544, 112 N. E. 228; Grace Methodist Episcopal Church v. Dobbins, 153 Pa. St. 294, 34 Am. St. Rep 706, 25 Atl. 1120; Sorkin v. Sent-man, 162 Pa. St. 543, 29 Atl. 722. So there may be a presrrip-tive right to have vessels overlap another's wharf. Wellington v. Cambridge, 220 Mass. 312, 107 N. E. 976. But prescription, it has been decided, can give no right to have branches of trees overhang adjoining land, in view of the constant change incident to growth. Lemmon v. Webb, (1894) 3 Ch. 1.
43. Goodwin v. Bragaw, 87 Conn. 31, 86 Atl. 668; Moon v. Mills, 119 Mich. 298, 75 Am. St. Rep. 390, 77 N. W. 926; Ailes v. Hallam, 69 W. Va. 305, 71 S. E. 273.
44. Trauger v. Sassman, 14 Pa. St. 514.
45. Jones v. Percival, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 485, 16 Am. Dec. 415.
46. Moody V. Steggles, 12 Ch. Div. 261.
47. Bass v. Gregory, 25 Q. B. D. 481.
48. Clark v. White, 5 Buah. 353; Bird v. Smith 8 Watts (Pa.) 434. 34 Am. Dec. 488.
49. Sampson v. Hoddinott, 1 C. B. N. S. 590; Stockport Waterworks Co. v. Potter, 3 Hurl & C 300; Walker v. Lillingston, 137 Cal. 401, 70 Pac. 282; Miller & Lux v. Enterprise Canal & Land Co., 169 Cal. 415, 147 Pac. 567; Parker v. Hotchkiss, 25 Conn 321; Thurber v. Martin, 2 Gray (Mass.) 394; Pratt v. Lamson, 2 Allen (Mass.) 275, 288; Crawford v. Hathaway, 67 Neb. 325, 60 L. R. A. 889, 108 Am. St. Rep. 647, 93 N. W. 781; Davis v. Chamberlain, 51 Ore. 304, 98 Pac. 154; Mud Greek Irr. Agr. & Mfg. Co. v. Vivian, 74 Tex. 170, 11 S. W. 1078; Lawrie v. Silsby, 76 Vt. 240, 104 Am. St. Rep. 927, 56 Atl. 1106. See note to 93 Am. St. Rep. at p. 717. But one's ability to acquire a prescriptive right to divert water from a stream at a certain point is not affected by the fact that he owns riparian land lower down on the stream. Dontanello v. Gust, 86 Wash. 268, 150 Pac. 420.
50. Chasemore v. Richards, 7 H. L. Cas. 349; Hanson v. Mc-cue, 42 Cal. 303, 10 Am. Rep. 299; Roath v. Driscoll, 20 Conn. 533, 52 Am. Dec. 352; Elster v. Francis, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 117; Village of Delhi v. Youmans, 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 316; Frazier v. Brown, 12 Ohio St. 294; Elster v. Springfield, 49 Ohio St. 82, 30 N. E. 274; Wheatley v. Baugh, 25 Pa. St. 528, 64 Am. Dec. 721; Wheelock v. Jacobs, 70 Vt. 162, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 105, 67 Am. St. Rep. 626, 40 Atl. 51.
51. Wood v. Waud, 3 Exch. 748; Greatrex v. Hayward, 8 Exch. 291; Broadbent v. Rams-botham, 11 Exch. 602.
One cannot, in this country, by the maintenance of windows in one's building overlooking adjacent land for the statutory period, acquire an easement of light and air in such land, since this involves no injury to the land, or diminution of the value of the beneficial interest therein, and consequently gives no right of action to the landowner.55 Likewise, the right of support for a building by another building or by adjacent land cannot, by the weight of authority in this country, be acquired by prescription, since not only is the exercise of the right not one which causes injury to the port, 10 Gray (Mass.) 28; White v. Chapin, 12 Allen (Mass.) 516; Swett v. Cutts, 50 N. H. 439, 9 Am. Rep. 276. Compare Ross v. Mackeney, 46 N. J. Eq. 140, 18 Atl. 685.
53. Zerban v. Erdman, 258 I11. 486, 101 N. E. 925; Tootle v. Clifton, 22 Ohio St. 247, 10 Am. Rep. 732; Louisville & N. Ry. Co. v. Mossman, 90 Tenn. 157, 25 Am. St. Rep. 670, 16 S. W. 64.
54. Moody v. Fremd, 177 Ky. 5, 197 S. W. 433; White v. Chapin, 12 Allen (Mass.) 516; Schnitzius v. Bailey, 48 N. J. Eq. 409, 22 Atl. 732; Glenn v. Line, 155 Mich. 608, 119 N. W. 1097.
55. Western Granite & Marble Co. v. Knickerbocker, 103 Cal. Ill, 37 Pac. 192; Guest v. Reynolds, 68 111. 478, 18 Am. Rep. 570; Lahere v. Luckey, 23 Kan. 534; Pierre v. Fernald, 26 Me. 436, 46 Am. Dec. 573; Keats v. Hugo, 115 Mass. 204, 15 Am. Rep. 80; Parker v. Foote, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 309; Mullen v. Strieker, 19 Ohio St. 135, 2 Am. Rep. 379; Haverstick v. Sipe, 33 Pa. St. 368; Napier v. Bulwinkle, 5 Rich. Law (S. C.) 311; Hubbard v. Town, 33 Vt. 295; Powell v. Sims. 5 W. Va. 1, 13 Am Rep. 629. Contra, Clawson v. Primrose, 4 Del. Ch. 643.
There are several decisions in this country that a right in the use of a party wall may be acquired by prescription,58 but this view, while clearly correct when it involves the placing of beams or other parts of a building in or on a wall upon adjoining land,59 is, it seems, in other cases, not involving any occupation of the space above such land, not reconcilable with the principle that the user, to be adverse, must be actionable,60 nor with the decisions above referred to, that a right of support for buildings from adjoining land or buildings cannot be acquired by prescription.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.