Majority — FIELD J.
Syllabus
1. The possession of a wharf by the defendant under color and with claim of title is sufficient to put the plaintiff, in an action on the case for obstructing him in its use, upon proof of a better title to the wharf, or, of an equal right with the defendant to its use.after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court, as follows:
We do not deem it important to consider whether the conveyance to Smith from Templeman, the trustee, was authorized by the power contained in the deed to the latter, or whether the subsequent conveyances under Smith oper
Nor was the right to use the wharf made appurtenant to the twenty-feet lot, situated on the north side of Water Street, by being conveyed to the Johns in the same instrument. It was in no way connected with the enjoyment or use of the lot, and a right not thus connected cannot be annexed as an incident to land so as to become appurtenant to it.[1]
The right was not attached as an incident to any estate; it passed by a grant in gross, and was necessarily limited in its duration by the existence of the structure with which it was connected.
Judgment aeeirmed.
* Ackroyd v. Smith, 10 Com. Bench, 164.