RECENT CASES. 353 possibly in equity the administrator of the insured might recover the amount of premiums paid. McElwee v. New York Co., 47 Fed. Rep. 795. There would seem to be a good quasi-contract here upon which the defendant might be charged in equity for the full amount of the policy, on the same princi- ple which permits a recovery upon a lost or destroyed bill or bond. QUASI-CONTRACTS RIGHT OF SON AGAINST A PARENT'S EXECUTOR FOR SUP- PORT OF the Deceased. — Where a son presented a claim against his mother's executor for board, attendance, support, etc., furnished by the son to the mother during the latter's lifetime : held, that such services, on account of the relationship, are presumed to have been furnished gratuitously, and that such presumption can only be rebutted by clear proof of an agreement between the parties for compensation. Wilkes v. Cornelius, 27 Pac. Rep. 135 (Ore.). The court do not seem to have had in mind the leading New Hampshire case of Sceva v. True, 53 N. H. 627, which holds what is conceived to be the true rule, that, if the claimant in such cases performed the services with the expectation of being remunerated, he is entitled to recover. In this view, it is immaterial "whether or not there was an express agreement between the parties. Property — Riparian Rights — Mill-site. — The owner of a mill-site at which a mill was formerly operated, but which had not been in use within six years of the time of bringing the action, cannot recover for the injury to the mill-site or water-power caused by the defendant's diversion of the waters < f the stream, although entitled to nominal damage for the diversion itself. Clark v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 22 Atl. Rep. 989 (Pa.). Property — Separate Estate for Unmarried Woman. — A use for the sole and separate benefit of a woman who, at the time of its creation, was neither married nor in immediate contemplation of marriage, is void; and a separate estate effectually created at the time of a woman's first marriage will not revive for her protection under a second marriage. In re Quinn's Estate, 22 Atl. Rep. 965 ( Pa 0- The case is of especial interest as tracing the development of the doctrine and contrasting the law in Pennsylvania, as here declared, with that held in England. Real Property — Covenants Running with the Land. — Where A con- veyed a way over her premises to a railroad company, in consideration of one dollar and the company's covenants to build a railroad, run daily trains, and erect a depot, and A subsequently assigned to B, and the company later abandoned the roadbed : held, that the covenants did not directly benefit the land and did not run. Lyford v. North Pac. R. Co., 27 Pac. Rep. 103 (Cal.). Real Property — Easements — Alteration of the Easement. — Where defendant is the owner of an easement to run water in an open ditch over the plaintiff's land, and undertakes to lay pipes in the ditch of no greater carrying capacity than the ditch, even though the change would be less burdensome to the plaintiff and more convenient to defendant, nevertheless the alteration would tend to substitute a new and different easement and will be enjoined. Allen et al. v. San Josi Land & Water Co. et al, 27 Pac. Rep. 215 (Cal.). Real Property — Easements — Right of Reversioner to Sue. — Defend- ant company built an elevated railroad through the street upon which plaintifPs land abutted, but did not condemn the easement of light, air, and access appur- tenant to that land. Plaintiff subsequently let the land for a term of years. Later, while thus out of possession, plaintiff brings action for disturbance of his easement. Held, that he could recover, because of the diminution of the rental value of the land. Semble, that the lessee would have no action. A different case, however, would be presented if the lease had been made before the con- struction of the railroad. Kernochan et al. v. N. Y. El. R.R. Co., 29 N. E. Rep. 65 (N. Y.). Real 1 roperty — Equity of Contract running with the Land. — De. fendanl contracted for the purchase of a lot in a fashionable quarter of Brooklyn, directly behind plaintiff's premises, and announced his intention to build on it a seven-story flat. Plaintiff bought off defendant's contract, paying $6,000 more than the market value of the lot in consideration of defendant's agreement to erect no such building anywhere in plaintiff's neighborhood. Defendant forth- with bought the lot opposite, began to build a flat on it, conveyed it to his wife, who had notice of the contract, and went on with the building as her agent. Held, that a bill by plaintiff would lie against defendant and his wife, to enjoin
