Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/564

 552- FEDEEAL EBPOETEE. �In Lampman v. Milks, it was held, when the owner of land across which flows a stream diverts the course of the latter, so as to relieve a portion of the tract from overflow, which he then sells, that neither he nor his grantees of the residue of the property can return the stream to its former bed to the damage of the first grantee. And in Coolidge v. Hapar, supra, it was held that the conveyance of a houee and land by an ordinary warranty deed carried with it, by impli- cation, the right which the grantor then had to water con- veyed to the premises by means of an aqueduct from a dis- tant spring. �This doctrine has been very strongly applied in the case of the grant of a mill messuage, or house, eo nomine. In the former case it has been decided that the grant will carry with it a parcel of land adjoining the mill, and used in connection with it, as well as that upon which it stands ; and also the right to the water from a particular creek owned by the grantor, and then used to run the mill. �In Whitney v. Olney, supra, it was held that land adjacent to and commonly used with a "mill," although not techni- cally appurtenant thereto, passed by a devise thereof, upon the ground that its use made it "parcel of the mill," and therefore it was presumed that it was intended to be compre- bended within the term "mill," and devised by it. See, also, U. S. V. Appleton, supra, where Mr. Justice Story, in illus- trating the proposition that upon the grant of a house it is implied from the nature of the grant, unless provision is made to the contrary, that the grantee shall possess the house in the manner and with the beneficiai rights as were then in use and belonging to it, said: "It is strictly a question what passes by the grant, Thus, if a man sells a mill, which at the time has a particular stream of water flowing to it, the right to the water passes as an appurtenance, although the grantor was, at the time of the grant, the owner of ail the stream above and below the mUl. And it will make no dif- ference that the mill was oqce another person's, and that the adverse right to use the stream had been acquired by the former owner, and might have been afterwards extinguished ��� �