
    Amie I. Adams, Appellant, v. John Gordon, Appellee.
    Gen. No. 5,866.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake county; the Hon. Chakles Whitney, Judge, presiding. Transferred to Supreme Court.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.
    Opinion filed April 15, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Bill by Amie I. Adams against J ohn Gordon praying for an injunction restraining defendant from interfering with her use of a path and well, claiming an easement therein,' It appeared that defendant owned a tract of land and conveyed a portion of the same to complainant’s grantor, whose contract of sale gave him the right to nse a well and its appurtenances and a path not exceeding eight feet in width leading to the well located on that part of the defendant’s tract not sold, until such time as public water should be laid and installed in an adjoining public street or highway. The conveyance to' complainant was by an ordinary warranty deed with no recital of easements or appurtenances. A demurrer was filed to complainant’s bill, the demurrer was sustained and on complainant electing to stand by her bill the bill was dismissed for want of equity. To reverse the decree, complainant appeals.
    Shepard, McCormick & Thomasson, John D. Pope, and Perry S. Patterson, for appellant.
    E. L. Clarke, for appellee.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    Appeal and error, § 155
      
      —when, suit concerning an easement involves a freehold. On appeal from a decree dismissing a bill to restrain defendant from interfering with the use of a well and pathway on defendant’s land, where the bill alleged that complainant’s grantor granted such easement until public water should be laid in an adjoining street, held that the interest complainant was contending for was an easement for an indefinite time, which may be forever or may be during the life, of the complainant, and therefore a freehold requiring an appeal to be taken to the Supreme Court.
    Whitney, P. J., took no part in this decision.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number^
    
   Mr. Justice Carnes

delivered the opinion of the court.  