A license is an authority given to one person to do some act upon the land of the licenser, without passing any estate in such land.1 Such authority is ordinarily revocable at the will of the licenser,2 unless especial circumstances of estoppel exist3 or unless it is coupled with some other interest in the same realty.4 If revocable, it is also revoked by the death of either party,5 or by a sale of the licenser's interest,6 or by a contract for the sale thereof.7 Acts done under a revocable license cannot be made trespasses by a revocation of the license,8 and in this consists the chief importance of the oral revocable license.

A license is not, therefore, within the statute of frauds, and an oral contract for a license is not affected by the statute.9

6 Dodder v. Snyder, 110 Mich. 69; 67 N. W. 1101.

1 Rhodes v. Otis, 33 Ala. 578; 73 Am. Dec. 439; Prince v. Case, 10 Conn. 375; 27 Am. Dec. 675; De Montague v. Bacharach, 181 Mass. 256; 63 N. E. 435; Rockport v. Granite Co., 177 Mass. 246; 51 L. R. A. 779; 58 N. E. 1017; Hodgkins v. Farrington, 150 Mass. 19; 15 Am. St. Rep. 168; 5 L. R. A. 209; 22 N. E. 73; Cook v. Stearns, 11 Mass. 533; Ainsworth v. Stone, 73 Vt. 101; 50 Atl. 805.

2Hitchens v. Shaller, 32 Mich. 496; Whittemore v. R. R., 174 Mass. 363; 54 N. E. 867; Hodgkins v. Tarrington, 150 Mass. 19; 15 Am. St. Rep. 168; 22 N. E. 73; Ewing v. Rhea, 37 Or. 583; 82 Am. St. Rep. 783; 52 L. R. A. 140; 62 Pac. 790.

3 Legg v. Horn, 45 Conn. 409; Hiers v. Mill Haven Co., 113 Ga. 1002; 39 S. E. 444; Wilson v. Chal-fant, 15 Ohio 248; 45 Am. Dec.

574; Ainsworth v. Stone, 73 Vt. 101; 50 Atl. 805.

4 Greenwood v. School District, 126 Mich. 81; 85 N. W. 241; Bol-land v. O'Neal, 81 Minn. 15; 83 Am. St. Rep. 362; 83 N. W. 471.

5Lambe v. Manning, 171 111. 612; 49 N. E. 509; Spacy v. Evans, 152 Ind. 431; 52 N. E. 605; Emerson v. Shores, 95 Me. 237; 85 Am. St. Rep. 404; 49 Atl. 1051; Hallett v. Parker, 68 N. H. 598; 39 Atl. 433; Eckert v. Peters, 55 N. J. Eq. 379; 36 Atl. 491.

6 Fish v. Capwell, 18 R. I. 667; 49 Am. St. Rep. 807; 29 Atl. 840.

7 Bruley v. Garvin, 105 Wis. 625; 81 N. W. 1038.

8 Hodgkins v. Farrington, 150 Mass. 19; 15 Am. St. Rep. 168; 5 L. R. A. 209; 22 N. E. 73; Cheever v. Pearson, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 273; Metcalf v. Hart, 3 Wyom. 513; 31 Am. St. Rep. 122; 27 Pac. 900; 31 Pac. 407.

9 De Montague v. Bacharach, 181

This discussion of licenses has been solely with reference to the effect of the statute of frauds on oral contracts for a license. Whether a license may have become irrevocable or not, or whether on revocation any liability attaches, are questions which are not here considered. The statute of frauds is often invoked, however, in cases where an irrevocable license is claimed, but as this question is one of an executed grant, it is rather a question for real property law than for contracts. What contracts concern licenses only, and what attempt to create easements or leases under the form of licenses by oral agreement is a question on which there is some divergent of judicial opinion. The right of control of the premises by the licenser has been suggested as the essential distinction. On this distinction a contract to let a public hall for four specified days at a certain price,10 or a contract by a boarding house keeper to furnish a man and his family with board and three specified rooms, together with light and heat,11 have been held to be licenses, and hence enforceable though oral. Permission to cut timber and remove crops has been held a license.12 Permission to make use of a wall on promisor's land as a permanent means of support for timbers of a building of promisee's has been held a contract for an easement and within the statute.13 An agreement in consideration of permission to make a temporary change in the channel of an artificial water-course to restore it to its original channel on request, is not within the statute.14

Mass, 256; 63 N. E. 435; Johnson v. Wilkinson, 139 Mass. 3; 52 Am. Rep. 698; 29 N. E. 62; White v. Maynard, 111 Mass. 250; 15 Am. Rep. 28; Turner v. Stanton, 42 Mich. 506; 4 N. W. 204; Olmstead v. Abbott, 61 Vt. 281; 18 Atl. 315.

10 Johnson v. Wilkinson, 139 Mass. 3; 52 Am. Rep. 698; 29 X. E. 62. On the other hand a contract for the use of a church edifice as a place of worship when not occupied by the religious society which owned it, has been held a contract for a lease and hence within the statute. Brumfield

V. Carson, 33 Ind. 94; 5 Am. Rep. 184.

11 White v. Maynard, 111 Mass. 250; 15 Am. Rep. 28.

12Whitmarsh v. Walker, 1 Met. (Mass.) 313.

13 Hodgkins v. Farrington, 150 Mass. 19; 15 Am. St. Rep. 168; 5 L. R. A. 209; 22 N. E. 73. Contra, that such a contract is for a mere license. Russell v. Hubbard, 59 111. 335.

14 Hamilton, etc., Co. v. R. R., 29 O. S. 341.