For fifty years Defendant had left vehicles on Plaintiff’s land and Plaintiff sought to restrain him from doing so.
Defendant claimed prescriptive easement.
The court denied an easement since the right exercised and claimed was too extensive to constitute an easement in law, as it amounted practically to a claim to the whole beneficial use of the land over which it had been exercised.
Because of the extent of the supposed right (right to leave possessions there for an indeterminate period anywhere on the land), it cannot come within easement.
In reality, beneficial use/joint use is claimed, and Defendant would have to argue for possession through adverse possession if he seeks to establish a right of this magnitude.
The right claimed was described as having a problem of “vagueness”.