"  Carter,  still  appears  to  me  to  be  open  to  analogous
"  reasoning.  Two  houses  had  existed  for  some  time,  each
"  supporting  the  other.  Is  there  anything  unreasonable
"  — is  there  not,  on  the  contrary,  something  very  reason-
"  able — to  suppose  in  that  case  that  the  man  who  takes  a
"  grant  of  the  house  first,  and  takes  it  with  the  right  of
"  support  from  that  adjoining  house,  should  also  give  to
"  that  adjoining  house  a  reciprocal  right  of  support  from
."his  own?"  His  lordship  concludes  his  judgment  by
referriag  again  to  the  case  of  Swanshorough^.  Coventry}  and
by  holding  that  in  the  present  case  the  fact  that  the  two
tenements,  though  not  sold  together,  were  put  up  at  an
auction  together  as  part  and  parcel  of  one  sale,  could  not
affect  the  question.
With  regard  to  what  words  are  necessary  in  a  convey-
ance to  pass  an  easement  not  necessary  to  the  enjoyment  of
the  tenement  granted,  it  has  been  held  that  general  words,
such  as  "  appertaining,"  "  belonging,"  &c.,  are  insufficient
on  the  severance  of  tenements  to  pass  such  rights  as  ways,
commons,  &c. ;  but  in  the  case  of  Wardle  v.  Brocklehurst,  it

'  9  Bing.  305.
