99. A license is an authority to do specified acts on the land of the licensor. A license is not an estate, and is not assignable.

Licenses are created either by express agreement, or by implication. An example of the latter is the implied license granted by all business men to the public to enter their stores or offices during business hours.234 So a license may be implied from other acts or representations of the owner of land.235 A license gives no interest in the land, but is merely a personal right.236 It differs from a lease of land chiefly in that the owner retains the possession of the land.237 The effect of a license is to permit the licensee to do acts upon the land which would otherwise be trespass.238 The grant of a license carries with it the right to use the necessary and proper means to accomplish the object.239 The licensee is liable for all damages resulting from negligent or improper execution of the license,240 but not for damages which are the natural result of the acts licensed.241 A license is purely personal, and cannot be assigned by the licensee.242 So a sale of the land by the

228 Hooton v. Holt, 139 Mass. 54, 29 N. E. 221; Jackson v. Parkhurst, 5 Johns. (N. .) 128; Jackson v. Mcleod, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 182; Livingston v. Tanner, 14 N. Y. 64. And see Kinsley v. Ames, 2 Mete. (Mass.) 29; Benedict v. Morse, 10 Mete. (Mass.) 223.

229 I stim. Am. St Law, § 2050; 2 Shars. & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 146. And see Minard v. Burtis, 83 Wis. 267, 53 N. W. 509.

230 I Wood, Landl. & Ten. (2d Ed.) 26; 1 Tayl. Landl. & Ten. (Sth Ed.) 74.

231 See Clark, Cr. Law, 345.

232 Wilde v. Cantillon, 1 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 123; Overdeer v. Lewis, 1 Watts & S. (Pa.) 90; Allen v. Keily, 17 R. I. 731, 24 Atl. 776; Stearns v. Sampson, 59 Me. 568; Todd v. Jackson, 26 N. J. Law, 525. Contra, Reeder v. Purdy, 41 111. 279; Wilder v. House, 48 111 279; Dustin v. Cowdry, 23 Vt 631.

233 Sampson v. Henry, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 36; Adams v. Adams, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 160.

234 Gibson, C. J., in Gowen v. Exchange Co., 5 Watts & S. (Pa.) 143. And see Kay v. Railroad Co., 65 Pa. St. 273; Cutler v. Smith, 57 111. 252; Sterling v. Warden, 51 N. H. 217; Heaney v. Heeney, 2 Denio (N. Y.) 625. So a sale of chattels gives an implied license to enter to remove them. Wood v. Man-ley, 11 Adol. & E. 34.

235 So there is an implied license to go to a private residence to make social calls. Martin v. Houghton, 145 Barb. (N. Y.) 25S; Adams v. Freeman, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 408. And see Gibson v. Leonard, 143 111. 1S2, 32 N. E. 182.

236 Mumford v. Whitney, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 381; Dolittle v. Eddy, 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 74; Ex parte Coburn, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 568; Blaisdell v. Railroad Co., 51 N. H. 483.

237 Funk v. Haldeman, 53 Pa. St. 229. And see Holladay v. Power Co., 55 111. App. 4G3; Kabley v. Light Co., 102 Mass. 392; Smith v. Simons, 1 Root (Conn.) 318; Haywood v. Fulmer (Ind. Sup.) 32 N. E. 574. A license differs from an easement in not being created by deed. Morse v. Copeland, 2 Gray (Mass.) 302; Mumford v. Whitney, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 381; Wiseman v. Luck-singer, 84 N. Y. 31; Wolfe v. Frost, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 72; Foot v. New Haven & Northampton Co., 23 Conn. 214. Cf. W. U. Tel. Co. v. Bullard, 67 Vt. 272, 31 Atl. 286.

238 Blaisdell v. Railroad Co., 51 N. It. 483; Sterling v. Warden, Id. 217; Miller v. Railway Co., 6 Hill (N. Y.) 61.

239 Com. v. Rigney, 4 Allen (Mass.) 316; Driscoll v. Marshall, 15 Gray (Mass.) 62. As to employ men to help remove a ponderous object from the licensor's land. Sterling v. Warden, 51 N. H. 217.

240 Selden v. Canal Co., 29 N. Y. 034; Eaton v. Winnie, 20 Mich. 156; Mc-knight v. Ratcliff, 44 Pa. St. 156; Dean v. Mclean, 48 Vt. 412. 241 Selden v. Canal Co., 29 N. Y. 634. 242 Mumford v. Whitney, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 381; Mendenhall v. Klinck, 51

§ 100; licensor puts an end to the authority.243 A license is also terminated by the death of either party,244 and by the expiration of the time for which it is given.245

Same - bsvocation of Licenses

100. Licenses are revocable in all cases, except: Exception's-(a) When coupled with an interest.

(b) When affecting only an easement of the licensor.

(c) In some states, -when the licensee, relying on the license, has erected improvements on the licensor's land.

The general rule is that licenses are revocable.246 But a license coupled with an interest is not. For example, if personal property is sold, and a license given to go upon the land of the vendor to remove the goods, it cannot be revoked.247 A license to do acts which obstruct or destroy an easement of the licensor cannot be revoked after it is executed.248 There is great conflict in the cases as to the power to revoke a license after the licensee has expended moneyor erected improvements on the land of the licensor.249

N. Y. 246; Jackson v. Babcock, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 418; De Haro v. U. S., 5 Wall. 599.

243 Blaisdell v. Railroad Co., 51 N. H. 483.

244 Prince v. Case, 10 Conn. 375; Blaisdell v. Railroad Co., 51 N. H. 483. Or by the Insanity of the licensor. Berry v. Potter (N. J. Ch.) 29 Atl. 323.

245 Detroit & B. Plank-road Co. v. Detroit S. Ry. Co., 103 Mich. 585, 61 N. W. 880. A conveyance of the land by the licensor will be a revocation. Jackson v. Babcock, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 418.

246 Baldwin v. Taylor, 166 Pa. St. 507, 31 Atl. 250; Bass v. Power Co., Ill N. O. 439, 16 S. E. 402; Minneapolis W. Ry. v. Minneapolis & St L. Ry. Co., 58 Minn. 128, 59 N. W. 983; Kreroer v. Railway Co., 51 Minn. 15, 52 N. W. 977.

247 Wood v. Manley, 11 Adol. & E. 34; Carter v. Wingard, 47 111. App. 296. But see Fish v. Capwell (R. L) 29 Atl. 840. It may be lost by abandonment. Patterson v. Graham, 164 Pa. St. 234, 30 Atl. 247.

248 Dyer v. Sanford, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 395; Morse v. Copeland, 2 Gray (Mass.) 302; Addison v. Hack, 2 Gill (Md.) 221.

249 As holding such a license irrevocable, see Flickinger v. Shaw, 87 Cal. 126, 25 Pac. 268; Grimshaw v. Belcher, 88 Cal. 217, 26 Pac. 84; Nowlin v. Whipple, 120 Ind. 596, 22 N. E. 669; Saucer v. Keller, 129 Ind. 475, 28 N. B.

The difficulty is that if the license is held irrevocable the effect is to transfer an interest in realty by parol.250 Some courts hold the licensor estopped to revoke.251 Others require him to place the licensee in statu quo, by compensating him for his expenditures.252 Where the license is in the nature of a contract for a definite time, the licensee is protected by awarding him specific performance.253 In some states all licenses are held to be revocable,254 and the licensee without remedy.255

1117; Messick v. Railway Co., 128 Ind. 81, 27 N. E. 419; Mcbroom v. Thompson, 23 Or. 559, 37 Pac. 57; Duke of Devonshire v. Eglin, 14 Beav. 530; Rerick v. Kern, 14 Serg. & R. 267; White v. Railway Co., 139 N. Y. 19, 34 N. E. 887. Cf.city Council of Augusta v. Burum, 93 Ga. 68, 19 S. E. 820. Contra, Village of Dwight v. Hayes, 150 111 273, 37 N. E. 218; Crosdale v. Lanigan, 129 N. Y. 604, 29 N. E. 824; Lawrence v. Springer, 49 N. J. Eq. 289, 24 Atl. 933; Minneapolis Mill Co. v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 51 Minn. 304, 53 N. W. 639.

250 wood v. Leadbitter, 13 Mees. & W. 838; Bridges v. Purcell, 1 Dev. & B. (N. C.) 492.

251 Risien v. Brown, 73 Tex. 135, 10 S. W. 661; School Dist v. Lindsay, 47 Mo. App. 134; Rhodes v. Otis, 33 Ala. 578. But see Churchill v. Hulbert, 110 Mass. 42; Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Kennedy, 132 Ind. 274, 31 N. E. 943.

252 Addison v. Hack, 2 Gill (Md.) 221; Woodbury v. Parshley, 7 N. H. 237. The licensee has in all cases a reasonable time to remove his property from the land after the revocation. Barnes v. Barnes, 6 "Vt. 388.

253 Wiuiamston & T. Ry. Co. v. Battle, 66 N. C. 540; Veghte v. Power Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 142.

254 Carley v. Gitcheu (Mich.) 62 N. W. 1003; Shirley v. Crabb, 138 Ind. 200, 37 N. E. 130. A ticket to a theater is a license, and may be revoked, Mccrea v. Marsh, 12 Gray (Mass.) 211; or to a horse race, Wood v. Leadbitter, 13 Mees. & W. 838.

255 Pitzman v. Boyce, 111 Mo. 387, 19 S. W. 1104; Crockett v. Railway Co.. 80 Tex. 292, 16 S. W. 38; Hodgkins v. Farrington, 150 Mass. 19, 22 N. E. 73; Shirley v. Crabb, 138 Ind. 200, 37 N. E. 130; Fentiman v. Smith, 4 East, 107.