
    Solomon Ashley vs. Aaron Ashley.
    A right, to have the water from one’s land ran by an ancient course over another’s land, is an easement on real estate, of which this court, by St. 1840, c. 87, $ 1. has original and exclusive jurisdiction.
    The plaintiff declared, in an action on the case, that, on the 1st of July, 1847, he was and ever since had been lawfully seized and possessed of a certain tract of meadow land in West Springfield, (describing the same,) across which there ran a certain ancient watercourse, leading from the plaintiff’s meadow to a certain lot of land belonging to the defendant; that the water from the plaintiff’s meadow and the rain which fell upon the same, from time immemorial, had been wont to ran through and along said ancient watercourse, as its natural channel, thereby draining the plaintiff’s meadow land, and rendering it arable and of great value; that the plaintiff) on the said 1st of July, was also seized and possessed of a certain right of way across the defendant’s lot, with the right to pass and repass with his servants, &c., across the defendant’s lot to the plaintiff’s meadow; that the defendant, well knowing the premises, but intending to injure the plaintiff, and deprive him of the benefit of his meadow land, and the right of way thereto, did, on the said 1st of July, and continually afterwards, obstruct the said watercourse by ploughing his lot, and across the watercourse, and across land, upon which the water from the watercourse was accustomed to run, by reason of which obstruction, the water of the watercourse had been set back upon and made to overflow the plaintiff’s meadow land, and his way aforesaid, whereby the plaintiff’s grass growing on his meadow had been injured and destroyed, his meadow rendered spongy, rotten, and impassable, and his way of no use, &c.
    The court of common pleas, Bigelow, J., presiding, on the defendant’s motion, ordered the action to be dismissed, for want of jurisdiction, whereupon the plaintiff excepted.
    
      W. G. Bates, for the plaintiff,
    cited Angell, Waterc. § 90; Johnson v. Jordan, 2 Met. 234, 239; Atkins v. Bordman, 2 Met. 457; 2 Dane, Ab. 715; Gale & Whatley, Easem. 185, 284, and cases cited.
    
      R. A. Chapman, for the defendant.
   By the Court.

According to the authorities, the right which the plaintiff claims, to have the water from his land run by the ancient watercourse over the defendant’s land, is an easement; and the obstruction of that watercourse is a disturbance of an easement on land, of which, by St. 1840, c. 87, § 1, the court of common pleas has no jurisdiction. Cary v. Daniels, 5 Met. 236 ; Crittenton v. Alger, 11 Met. 281; and the action was rightly dismissed 
      
       This point is now rendered unimportant by St. 1852, c. 51, § 3, which gives the court of common pleas concurrent jurisdiction with this court in this class of cases.
     