Lampman v. . Milks.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's judgment in favor of the defendant who had restored a stream to its original course, ordering a new trial. The court held that the benefit of the artificial diversion of the stream was an appurtenant easement that passed with the conveyed land and could not be unilaterally altered after the severance of the tenements. The decision also clarified that continuous, apparent easements pass by conveyance, while discontinuous easements only pass when absolutely necessary to the enjoyment of the conveyed property.