EASEMENTS  AND  LICENSES.  401

weight  of  authority  and  better  reasoning  support  it.'"  It  was
formerly  held  in  England  and  in  a  few  States  in  this  country,
that  the  easement  requiring  the  support  of  buildings  might
be  acquired  by  prescription;  but  it  is  now  the  general,  if  not
the  uniyersal  rule,  that  it  cannot  be  acquired  by  prescription."

It  is  difScuIt  to  see  how  this  easement  could  arise  by  pre-
scription, for  there  can  be  no  possession  of  anything  belonging
to  another,  "no  encroachment  on  another's  right,  no  adverse
user,  in  fact,  nothing  done  whatever  against  which  another
could  complain  or  for  which  an  action  could  be  brought;  and
no  remedy  existing  whereby  to  prevent  such  a  presumption
from  arising.'"^

A  further  reason  is  given  that  such  a  doctrine  could  not  be
applied  to  the  conditions  of  a  country  which  is  growing  so
rapidly  as  the  United  States  without  working  injurious  results.
The  easement  of  lateral  support  in  this  country  can  only
arise  from  an  express  or  implied  grant.
The  following  is  an  instance  of  an  implied  grant:  Where
the  owner  of  a  building  conveys  it  and  retains  land  adjoining
it  which  is  necessary  to  the  support  of  the  building  sold,  it  was
held  that  there  was  an  implied  grant  of  a  lateral  support  of
the  building.'*

If  the  easement  exists,  the  owner  of  the  adjoining  soil  has
no  more  right  to  remove  the  lateral  support  sufficient  to  main-
tain the  increased  burden,  than  he  has  to  remove  the  support
to  the  land  in  its  natural  state.  If  no  right  to  the  support
of  the  extra  burdens  exists,  there  are  yet  some  obligations
resting  on  the  owner  of  the  adjoining  land.    If  he  is  about  to

«= Aurora  vs.  Fox,  78  Ind.,  1.
"Gllmore  vs.  DriscoU,  122  Mass.,  199.
