First.  Easements  are  incorporeal.  They  are  rights  to  use
the  land  of  another  in  a  certain  way,  by  one  who  has  no  pro-
prietary right  in  the  proi)erty.  A  right  to  use  land  without
any  right  to  the  land  or  its  product,  is  a  mere  privilege  without
corporeal  attributes.
For  instance,  if  I  have  the  right  to  drive  over  the  land  of
my  neighbor,  that  is  an  easement  which  confers  no  right  to  the
soil  under  the  roadway,  and  what  I  own  is  merely  a  privilege
of  using  my  neighbor's  land.
If  I  use  fhe  soil  in  any  way  not  justified  by  the  easement,
I  am  guilty  of  trespass,^  and  if  anyone  commits  an  act  on  the
land  which  does  not  interfere  with  my  easement,  I  have  no
cause  of  action,  even  though  he  be  a  stranger  without  claim  of
title.  This  privilege  of  using  the  land  of  my  neighbor,  while  it
is  not  a  right  to  the  land  or  its  product,  is  yet  regarded  by  the
law  as  an  interest  in  the  land;  but  such  interest  from  its  very
nature  is  incapable  of  an  actual  delivery,  and  therefore  of  liv-
ery of  seisin,  and  is  an  incorporeal  hereditament.
Second.  Easements  are  imposed  on  corporeal  property.  A
contemplation  of  the  particular  easements  hereinafter  dis-
cussed, such  as  rights  of  way,  right  of  light  and  air,  right  of
lateral  support,  will  at  once  disclose  that  they  are  rights  in
corporeal  property.
'Read  vs.  Leads,  19  Conn.,  182.
EASEMENTS  AND  WCENSES.  383

Easements  are  not  imposed  on  persons.  It  is  true  that  the
owner  of  one  estate  may  by  agreement  be  entitled  to  the  per-
sonal services  of  the  owner  of  the  neighboring  tenement,  but
such  a  right  is  not  an  easement.
