Laserfiche WebLink
implied easement for drainage over Lot 2, 58 ALR 824. <br /> <br />nc!joinh~g t;'aats of l;md. l-lc uses one trnct for the bencl]t o1' thc other. This usc <br />wotlld be considered an easement if the lands were owned separatcly, For this <br /> <br />[XAMPLE: WISere A owned two adjoining Ires ,md COIlStrLK:tC(I a driveway <br />or party driveway. Walters v. Cactde, 390 III. 518, 62 NE2d 439 (1945); Carman <br /> <br />Doistmroth v. Dabe, 7 111.2d 3,10, 131 NE2d 17 (1955). <br /> <br /> <br />