Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Express-reservation-or-exception-Part-9.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:49:53+00:00

Document:
179. Compare Whyte v. Builders' League of New York, 164 N. Y. 429, 58 N. E. 517. As in the case of conveyances made by several cotenants for purposes of partition. O'daniel v. Baxter, 112 Ky. 334, 65 S. W. 805; Robinson v. Hillman, 36 App. Cas. (D. C.) 241; Johnson v. Gould, 60 W. Va. 84, 53 S. E. 798; Clark v. De-baugh, 67 Md. 430, 10 Atl. 241.
30. Jones v. Sanders, 138 Cal. 405; Cheda v. Bodkin, 173 Cal. 7, 158 Pac. 1025; Stephens v. Boyd, 157 Iowa, 570, 138 N. W. 389; Gorton Pew Fisheries Co. v. Tolman, 210 Mass. 402, 38 L R. A. (N. S.) 882, 97 N. E. 54; Muse v. Gish, 114 Va. 90, 75 S. E. 764; Pearson v. Spencer, 3 B. & S. 761; Phillips v. Low, L. R (1892) 1 Ch. 47; Schwann v. Cotton (1916) 2 Ch. 120.
N. Y. 263, 36 N. E. 1059; Thropp v. Field, 26 N. J. Eq. (11 C. E. Green) 82; Miller v. Fitzgerald Dry Goods Co., 62 Neb. 270, S6 N. W. 1078; Comm. v. Burford, 225 Pa. 52, 73 Atl. 1064; and other citations in 1 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten. Sec. 128.
32. Pendola v. Ramm, 138 Cal. 517, 71 Pac. 624; John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Patterson, 103 Ind. 582, 53 Am. Rep. 550, 2 N. E. 188; Carrig v. Mechanics Bank, 136 Iowa, 261, 111 N. W. 329; Havens v. Klein, 51 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 82; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Jones, 50 Pa. St. 417.
In Harlow v. Whiteher, 136 Mass. 553, it was held that the fact that the mortgagee of land released a part thereof from the mortgage did not impose an easement on the other part, as against the mortgagee, corresponding to a user then male by the mortgagor of the other part for the benefit of the part released.
In Cannon v. Boyd, 73 Pa. St. 179, it was held, apparently, lh.it an easement passed to a purchaser at a sale under the mortgage although the quasi easement did not exist until after the making of the mortgage.
33. Zell v. Universalist Society, 119 Pa. St. 390, 4 Am. St. Rep. 654, 13 Atl. 447; Manbeck v. Jones, 190 Pa. St. 171, 42 Atl. 536.
34. Kieffer v. Imhoff, 26 Pa. St. 438; Building Association v. Getty, 11 Phila. 305.
35. Kilgour v. Ascham, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 82; Muir v. Cox, 110 Ky. 560, 62 S. W. 73; Ellis v. Bassett, 128 Ind. 118, 25 Am. St. Rep. 421, 27 N. E. 344; Brakely v. Sharp, 9 N. J. Eq. 9, 10 Id. 206; Goodall v. Godfrey, 53 Vt. 219, 38 Am. Rep. 671; Burweil v. Hobson, 12 Gratt. (Va.) 322, 65 Am. Dec. 247; Powell v. Riley, 15 Lea (Tenn.) 153; Gentry v. Piercy, 175 Ky. 174, 193 S. W. 1017.
It has been applied in connection with the assignment of dower. Morrison v. King, 62 II!. 30. Compare Smith v. Smith, 62 N. H. 652.
36. Trump v. Mcdonnell, 120 Ala. 200, 24 So. 353; Green v. Collins, 86 N. Y. 246.
It has been decided that the fact that the owner of the land so used for the benefit of another's land joins in a conveyance of the latter, being the husband of the owner thereof, does not impose an easement on his land. Farley v. Howard, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 193, 172 N. Y. Supp. 28.
Latta v. Catawba Elec. Co., 146 N. C. 285, 59 S. E. 1028; Jarnigan v. Mairs, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 473.
38. See Spencer v. Kilmer, 151 N. Y. 390, 45 N. E. 865.
39. Ante, Sec. 361, note 35.
40. Farley v. Howard, 60 X. Y. App. Div. 173, 70 N. Y. Supp. 51, 172 X. Y. 628, 65 X. E. 111C; Palmer v. Palmer, 150 X. Y. 139, 55 Am. St. Rep. 653, 44 X. E. 966. But see Mcelroy v. Mcleay, 71 Vt. 396, 45 Atl. 898, to the effect that in such case the grantee would have a right to call for partition.

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.