235/2 Reader v. Moody, 3 Jones, (N. C.) 372. Cf. Basset v. Maynard, Cro. Eliz. 819, 820. 235/3 Browne v. Dawson, 12 A. & E. 624. Cf. D. 43. 16. 17; ib. 3, Section 9; D. 41. 2. 18, Section 3; Clayton, 147, pl. 268. 236/1 Cf. Bruns, R. d. Besitzes, 503. 237/1 Clark v. Maloney, 3 Harrington (Del.), 68. Bruns (R. d. Besitzes, 503, 507) comes to the same conclusion on practical grounds of convenience, although he utterly repudiates it on theory. I must refer to what I said above touching these conflicts between theory and convenience. 238/1 Bruns, R. d. Besitzes, Section 57, p. 486. A learned writer of more ancient date asks why a doctor has not a possessory action if you cease to employ him, and answers: "Sentio actionem non tenere, sed sentio tantum, nec si vel morte mineris, possum dicere quare. Tu lector, si sapis, rationes decidendi suggere." Hommel, Rhaps., qu. 489, cited, Bruns, 407. 239/1 Gardiner v. Thibodeau, 14 La. An. 732. 239/2 Bruns, 483. 240/1 2 Kent (12th ed.), 205, n. 1. Cf. Y.B. 21 Hen. VI. 8, 9, pl. 19; American note to Scott v. Shepherd, in 1 Sm. L. C. (Am. ed.). 240/2 Britton (Nich. ed.), I. 277 (cf. Bract., fol. 164 b; Fleta, fol. 214; Glanv., Lib. XIII. c. 37); Littleton, Sections 237-240, 588, 589; 3 Bl. Comm. 170; 3 Cruise, Dig., tit. xxviii., Rents, ch. 2, Section 34. 241/1 See Lecture XI. 241/2 Cf. Stockport Water Works v. Potter, 3 H. & C. 300, 318. The language in the seventh English edition of 1 Sm. L. C., 300, is rather too broad. If the law should protect a possessor of land in the enjoyment of water coming to it, it would do so because the use of the water was regarded as a part of the enjoyment of that land, and would by no means imply that it would do the same in the case just put of a way over land of another. 242/1 Jefferies v. Great Western Railway Co., 5 El. & B1. 802. Cf. Armory v. Delamirie, 1 Strange, 505, 1 Sm. L. C. 242/2 Co. Lit. 145 b. 242/3 2 Wms. Saund. 47 b, note 1, to Wilbraham v. Snow. 242/4 Bract., fol. 150 b, 151; supra, p. 168; Y.B. 22 Ed. I. 466-468. 242/5 Y.B. 48 Ed. III. 20; 11 Hen. IV. 17; 11 Hen. IV. 23, 24; 21 Hen. VII. 14. The meaning of sua is discussed in Y.B. 10 Ed. IV. 1, B, by Catesby. Compare Laband, Vermogensrechtlichen Klagen, 111; Heusler, Gewere, 492 et seq., correcting Bruns, R. d. Besitzes, 300 et seq.; Sohm, Proc. d. L. Sal., Section 6. 243/1 Y.B. 11 Hen. IV. 17, pl. 39. 243/2 Y.B. 21 Hen. VII. 14 b, pl. 23. 243/3 Godbolt, 173, pl. 239. Cf. 11 Hen. IV. 17, pl. 39. 243/4 Bro. Abr. Trespass, pl. 433, cit. Y.B. 13 Hen. VII. 10. 243/5 Kelyng, 89. See, further, Buller, N. P. 33. 243/6 Lecture V.; Y.B. 20 Hen. VII. 1, pl. 11. 243/7 Y.B. 21 lien. VII. 14 b, pl. 23. 243/8 1 Roll. Abr. 4, 5 (I), pl. 1. Cf. Arnold v. Jefferson, 1 Ld. Raym. 275. 244/1 29 Ass., fol. 163, pl. 28. 244/2 Southcote's Case, 4 Co. Rep. 83 b. 244/3 Mores v. Conham, Owen, 123. Cf. Ratcliff v. Davis, I Bulstr. 29.