Does a building that stands upon a lot of land deprive the owner of possession of his land?

of and beyond such lot. We think that to the extent the building in this case stands upon the plaintiffs' land it deprives him of its possession. As it was said in Griffiths v. Morrison, the character of the easement claimed by the defendant, in effect, does not differ from the claim of the fee to the strip in question. The controversy here is trivial, when the amount of land claimed is considered, but important principles seem involved which call for an expression of our views. Our conclusion is that as the servitude or easement claimed by the defendant is not found in the grant, and was not, in the nature of the case, apparent, and there was no necessity for its existence, the defendant's claim must fail.