Fitzstephens v. Watson

Mr. and Mrs. Davies orally agreed, as part of a land sale to the Mairses, that their retained parcel would supply water to the Mairses' new dominant parcel; they later executed an 'Easement Deed' stating they 'agreed to furnish' water and 'covenant' to maintain a reservoir supplying it. Davies later conveyed the servient tract to the Watsons (defendants), and the Mairses sold part of the dominant tract, including a fishing resort, to Fitzstephens (plaintiff). When the Watsons developed their own competing resort on the servient tract, they cut off Fitzstephens's water supply, claiming waste and their own resort's need justified it, and ultimately declared in 1954 they would never permit any further water use. Fitzstephens sued; the trial court held the Easement Deed created a valid, perpetual easement and enjoined the Watsons from interfering, and the Watsons appealed.