Elizabeth Grant v.

Philip Chase and another

9 Am. Dec. 161
October 1821
Easements/Servitudes
Doctrine:
The conveyance of a specific piece of ground carved out of a larger
piece held by the grantor, and described by metes and bounds, with all the
privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging, carries nothing which is not
included within the boundaries; and a right of way through the premises of the
grantor does not pass under these words.
Facts:
Abijah Estees was seised in fee for the messuage and land now owned
by plaintiff on Essex Street. He purchased the messuage now owned by the
defendants, which lies in the rear of the other, and fronts on another street.
This latter was called the sugar-house estate. Estes died in the spring of
1792. During this time there was no division fence between the two lots. There
was only one well, and one outhouse for both messuages; and they were on the
land now owned by the plaintiff, and were used in common by Estes, and by
his tenants who occupied the other estate.
In his last will, Estes devised the sugar house estate to his daughter
Mary Blaney, with all its appurtenances, as it is now let or hired; and the
remainder after her decease, to his three other children. The other estate he
devised to Mary Blaney, and his two other daughters in common, so long as
they will continue to live together as one family;-- but in case they shall
choose to live separately, he gave the north end of the house to his two lastmentioned daughters, with the common use of the well, yard, outhouses, east
entry and kitchen; which shall be in common to their use, and Blaneys use
Estes then devised the south end of the same house to Blaney; and all the
residue of his estate, after her death, to his son and the said two other
daughters.
After his death, it appeared that his estate was insolvent. Blaney sold
the sugar house estate to one Thomas Mason and is conveyed with all
privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging. Thomas Mason conveyed the
deed to Abigail Mason, and therein granted the privilege of drawing water

from the well, and the privilege of an outhouse, with the right of passing to
and from them. The defendants hold under this title, which has come to them
by three intermediate conveyances; in all which the privilege in the well is
expressly granted.
On the 14th of December, 1792, the said two other daughters and the
son of said Estes, the tesator, conveyed all their interest in the estate on Essex
street to the said Mary Blaney; and the plaintiff now holds that estate under
her by sundry mesne conveyances. None of these last-mentioned deeds and
conveyances contain any exception of the said privilege in the well, nor any
mention of it, or of the right of way.
The well had been filled up for many years, and that the outhouse had
been removed to another part of the land.
Issue:
Whether or not the privilege and way in question passed by the terms
of the deed of Blaney
Held:
No.
This is a conveyance of a specific piece of land, carved out of a larger
piece held by the grantor, and described by metes and bounds. In such a case,
nothing could pass as parcel of the granted premises, but what is included
within the boundaries expressed in the deed; at least, none of the remaining
part held by the grantor. Neither could these easements pass as appurtenant,
under the general clause relating to privileges and appurtenances. It does not
appear that the way and other privileges were ever used or claimed before
Estes became seised of both the houses. If they had existed before that time,
the right would have been extinguished by the unity of seisin in Estes.