Definition
A disturbance of ways is the wrongful interference with a person's established right of way over another's land. It occurs when the holder of an easement of way — whether acquired by grant or prescription — is prevented from exercising that right fully and conveniently. The interference may take any physical form: enclosures, fences, gates, structures built across the path, or the plowing of soil across the route. The wrong lies not only in total obstruction but also in any diminishment of the right's convenient enjoyment.
The term belongs to the broader category of disturbance of incorporeal hereditaments — the common law mechanisms for protecting rights that exist in use rather than in physical possession. An action for disturbance of ways is the appropriate remedy when trespass will not lie, because the claimant holds a right over, not title to, the land in question.
---
Common Confusion
DISTURBANCE OF WAYS vs. TRESPASS: These are frequently confused but are legally distinct. Trespass protects possessory rights in land; a disturbance of ways protects an incorporeal right — the easement — without requiring the claimant to hold possession. If a landowner plows across a neighbor's right-of-way path, the easement holder sues for disturbance of ways, not trespass, because the easement holder does not possess the soil. The two causes of action may arise from the same facts but belong to different legal categories.
DISTURBANCE OF WAYS vs. NUISANCE: Both are non-possessory wrongs, but nuisance addresses interference with use and enjoyment of one's own land, while disturbance of ways addresses interference with a right exercised over another's land.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is principally a term of art in historical common law pleading and property doctrine. Researchers working in pre-twentieth-century American or English case law will encounter it most often in actions on the case — the pleading form used when the wrong was consequential rather than direct, and when trespass on the case had to be distinguished from trespass vi et armis.
The term carries important temporal and jurisdictional traps. In modern American practice, the underlying concept survives but the doctrinal label largely does not. Contemporary courts address the same wrong under the heading of easement interference, injunctive relief for obstruction, or damages for interference with an easement appurtenant. Researchers who search only for modern easement language in digitized historical sources will miss the relevant authorities; the reverse is equally true.
The connection to Blackstone's Commentaries (Book III, Chapter 13, on injuries to real property) is load-bearing in the historical sources. All three shelf dictionaries trace directly to 3 Bl. Comm. 241-242. This passage is the doctrinal anchor for virtually every American and English authority through the mid-nineteenth century. Bouvier supplements with American state citations — Gray, Maryland Reports, and Pennsylvania Reports — that extend the doctrine into the 1850s and are worth following into those reporters directly.
Burrill's cross-reference to disturbance of the right to water is a useful navigational signal: the broader category of disturbances of incorporeal hereditaments in Crabb's Real Property treatise encompasses ways, water rights, commons, and other easement types, and researchers should treat these as a connected doctrinal family.
The plowing scenario cited consistently across dictionaries is not merely illustrative. It reflects a historically common agricultural dispute in which a right of way across open field land was rendered impassable seasonally, raising questions about whether temporary or seasonal obstruction was actionable at all — an issue litigated with some frequency in the Pennsylvania and Massachusetts courts cited by Bouvier.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
All three sources converge closely on a single formulation traceable to Blackstone, with minor variation in phrasing. Burrill's entry is the most analytically complete: it specifies that the right need not be totally blocked — interference with commodious enjoyment is sufficient — and its cross-references to Crabb's Real Property and Stephen's Commentaries extend the research trail beyond Blackstone's summary statement. Black's and Bouvier's entries are functionally identical in definition, with Bouvier adding American case citations that Burrill and Black's omit.
None of the three historical dictionaries addresses the remedial dimension with precision. They identify the wrong but do not specify whether the action lies at law for damages, in equity for injunction, or both — a gap that matters to historical researchers reconstructing pleading practice. The answer, generally, is that the action on the case at law was the primary historical vehicle, with equity providing injunctive relief where repeated or continuous obstruction made legal remedies inadequate.
The historical sources also do not address the distinction between disturbance of a public way and disturbance of a private right of way. Public obstruction falls under different doctrinal headings (public nuisance, highway law), and researchers should be alert to the private-law character of disturbance of ways as the term appears in these dictionaries.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The term as a formal cause of action is primarily English and early American common law. American jurisdictions absorbed the substance into general easement law; the discrete label faded from practice by the late nineteenth century in most states. Researchers in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts will find the most developed early American case law, as reflected in Bouvier's citations.
---