Abatiell v. Morse, 115 Vt. 254, 56 A.2d 464, 466[2-5]. citing Schofield v. Harrison L. M. Co., Mo., 187 S.W. 61, 64[8]; Olsen v. Noble, 209 Ga. 899, 76 S.E.2d 775, 780[6-10], reviewing authorities and here referred to; Deregibus v. Silberman Furniture Co., 121 Conn. 633, 186 A. 553, 105 A.L.R. 1183, 1186; Perley v. Hilton, 55 N.H. 444, 447; Capps v. Merrifield, 227 Mich. 194, 198 N.W. 918; Coggins v. Shilling, 30 N.J. Super. 26, 103 A.2d 171, 173; 28 C.J.S. 643, § 8; 1 Thompson, Real Property (1939), 515, § 323; 4 Tiffany, Real Property, 3d Ed., 550, § 1193; 2 Blk. Com. 265. [283] Plaintiffs say defendants' position has been ruled contra in Jacobs v. Brewster, 354 Mo. 729, 190 S.W.2d 894, 898[7], and Smith v. Santarelli, Mo. App., 207 S.W.2d 543, 545[2, 3].

Deregibus v. Silberman Furniture Co., 121 Conn. 633 ( 186 A. 535, 105 A.L.R. 1183). "A prescription in a que estate must always be laid in the person who is seized in a fee simple." Perley v. Hilton, 55 N.H. 444, 447; 2 Black Com. 265. Where the landlord never had possession of the land or claimed title to it, and did not include it in the lease, the possession of the tenant beyond the boundaries of the land contained in the lease is not the possession of the landlord, even though the tenant believes he is occupying only the land demised.

In the absence of any reference in the lease of an alleged dominant tenement to a right of way over an alleged servient tenement, adverse user of such a way by the lessee however long continued is of no effect in the creation of an easement by prescription, because "prescription in a que estate must always be laid in the person who is seized in a fee simple." Perley v. Hilton, 55 N.H. 444, 447. Applying these principles to the facts in the case at bar, it is obvious that from February 1929 until May 3, 1944 any adverse user of respondents' land by complainant was solely that of a tenant and did not redound to the benefit of the owner of the fee.

2 Blk. Com. 265." Perley v. Hilton, 55 N.H. 444, 447. The plaintiff, therefore, as tenant, could only have claimed to use the way as appurtenant to the estate in fee in his lessors.

2 Blk.Com. 265." Perley v. Hilton, 55 N.H. 444, 447. The plaintiff, therefore, as tenant, could only have claimed touse the way as appurtenant to the estate in fee in his lessors.

On the other hand it has been held that, although a nuisance be a public one, yet so far as individuals are concerned a prescriptive right may be obtained. Charnley v. Shawano Co., 109 Wis. 563 (case of a dam on a navigable stream); Perley v. Hilton, 55 N.H. 444. In other cases it is said that no prescriptive right can be obtained against the public, nor against an individual especially injured who claims under and by virtue of the public right, yet it may be in other cases.