One  Pierce  deeded  to  the  N.  Y.  &  O.  M.  Railroad  Company  a  cer-
tain portion  of  his  farm.  The  deed  contained  the  following  reserva-
tion: "Said  parties  of  first  part  also  to  have  the  privilege  of  mowing
and  cultivating  the  surplus  ground  not  required  for  railroad  purposes."
Complainant  contended  that  the  right  of  mowing  and  cultivating  the
strip  was  an  easement  which  would  pass  to  Pierce's  grantee  without
designation.  The  court  did  not  accept  this  conclusion.  It  pointed  out
that  an  easement  was  an  incorporeal  right  which  attached  to  an  estate
to  be  exercised  over  another  estate.  "The  right  reserved  in  the  Pierce
deed  was  a  right  to  profit  of  lands  and  was  not,  therefore,  in  strict-
ness, an  easement.  From  the  nature  of  the  right,  we  can  see  no  con-
nection hetween  it  and  ownership  of  farm.  The  right  to  mow  and
cultivate  this  strip  was  in  no  way  necessary  to  or  even  useful  to  the
remainder  of  the  farm."  The  court  held  that  the  right  reserved  was  a
right  to  profits  a  prendre  and  was  a  personal  privilege  that  belonged  to
Pierce  as  an  indlvidTial  and  not  as  an  owner  of  the  farm,  and  that
such  privilege  was  not  an  easement  and  would  not  pass  to  Pierce's
grantee.
BASEMENTS  AND  LICENSES.  385

but  if  I  exercise  a  right  I  may  have  to  go  on  another's  land
and  take  a  portion  of  his  crop,  I  thereby  come  into  the  pos-
session of  a  material  property.  The  right  of  way  enhances  the
value  of  my  land,  the  right  to  the  product  while  it  enriches  me,
does  not  affect  or  appertain  to  my  land.  The  former  is  an
easement,  the  latter  a  profit  a  prendre.
