26. Wood v. Leadbitter, 13 Mees. & W. 838; Mccrea v. Marsh, 12 Gray (Mass.) 211. See 14 Harv. Law Rav. 455. Meisner v. Detroit B. I. & W. Ferry Co., 154 Mich. 545, 118 N. W. 14.

27. See White v. Maynard, 111 Mass. 250; Wilson v. Martin, 1 Denio (N. Y.) 602; 1 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten., Sec. 8.

28. Merriam v. City of Meri-den, 43 Conn. 173; Cutler v. Smith 57 111. 252.

29. Occum Co. v. A. & W. Sprague Mfg. Co., 34 Conn. 529; Owens v. Lewis, 46 Ind. 489, 15 Am. Rep. 295; Great Falls Waterworks Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 21 Mont. 487, 54 Pac. 963; Wilkins v. Irvine, 33 Ohio St. 138; Pursell v. Stover, 110 Pa. St. 43, 20 Atl. 403; Clark v. Glid-den, 60 Vt. 702, 15 Atl. 358; Bay View Land Co. v. Ferguson, 53 Wash. 323, 101 Pac. 1093; Lock-hart v. Geir, 54 Wis. 133, 11 N. W. 245.

30. Occum Co. v. A. & W. Sprague Mfg. Co., 34 Conn. 529; Cutler v. Smith, 57 111. 252; Noftsger v. Barkdoll, 148 Ind. 531, 47 N. E. 960; Fischer v. Johnson, 106 Iowa, 181, 76 N. W. 658; Harmon v. Harmon, 61 Ma. 222; Fletcher v. Evans, 140 Mass. 241, 2 N. E. 837; Metcalf v. Hart, 3 Wyo. 513, 31 Am. St. Rep. 122, 31 ac. 407.

Business.31 And a license to do certain acts on land may occasionally he inferred from the owner's failure to object to the doing of such acts thereon.32 One who sells to another things which are upon the land impliedly licenses the purchaser to come upon the land to act the chattels within a reasonable time.33

- (c) Scope of license. A license to do a particular act necessarily involves a license to do any other act essential thereto.34 A license is not, however, ordinarily construed as allowing an act other than that named unless it is so essential, and it has accordingly been decided that a license to place a structure or appliance on one's land does not authorize the licensee to place there another structure or appliance in case the first is destroyed or becomes useless.35 In the case of a license to do some particular act, not continuous in its nature, the act must be done within a reasonable time.36

31. Gowen v. Philadelphia Exchange Co., 5 Watts & S. (Pa.) 141; Cutler v. Smith, 57 111. 252. See Phillips v. Cutler, 89 Vt. 233, 95 Atl. 487.

32. Occum Co. v. Sprague Mfg. Co., 34 Conn. 529; Xoftsger v. Barkdoll, 148 Ind. 531, 47 N. E. 960; Fischer v. Johnson, 106 Iowa, 181, 76 N. W. 658; Smyrs v. Kiowa County, 89 Kan. 664, 132 Pac. 181; Sheehan v. Kasper, 41 Nev. 27, 165 N. W. 632; Dris-coll v. Newark, etc., Lime Co., 37 N. Y. 637, 97 Am. Dec. 761; Swing v. Rhsa, 37 Ore. 583, 82 Am. St. Rep. 783, 52 L. R. A. 140, 62 Pac. 790; Thayer v. Jar-vis, 44 Wis. 388; Metcalf v. Hart, 3 Wyo. 513, 31 Am. St. Rep. 122, 31 Pac. 407. See Phillips v. Cutler, 89 Vt. 233, 95 Atl. 487.

33. Rogers v. Cox, 96 Ind. 157;

Folsom v. Moore, 19 Me. 252; Barry v. Woodbury, 205 Me. 592, 91 N. E. 902. And see post, Sec. 349(d), note 56.

34. Clark v. Vermont, etc. R. Co., 28 Vt. 103; Sterling v. Warden, 51 N. H. 217, 12 Am. Rep. 80, 22 Am. Dec. 410; Woodruff v. Beekman. 43 N. Y. Super. Ct. 282; Sayles v. Bemis, 57 Wis. 315, 15 N. W. 432.

35. Hall v. Boyd, 14 Ga. 1; Carleton v. Redington, 21 X. 11. 291; Cowles v. Kidder, 24 N .H. 364, 57 Am. Dec. 287. But see Southwestern R. Co. v. .Mitchell, 69 Ga. 114.

36. Parsons v. Camp, 11 Conn. 525; Gilmore v. Wilbur, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 120, 22 Am. Dec. 410; Hill v. Hill, 113 Mass. 103, 18 Am. Rep. 455.

The license will protect the agents or servants of the licensee if it is a license, not for pleasure, but to take profits from the land,37 or if the act authorized is such as to render the employment of others to do it necessary or proper.38

- (d) Revocability of license. A license is, as a general rule, revocable at the pleasure of the licensor,39 and the fact that the license was embodied in an instrument under seal is immaterial in this regard.40 The fact, moreover, that a consideration was paid for the license has more usually been regarded as not

37. Wickham v. Hawker, 7 Mees. & W. 63.

38. Sterling v. Warden, 51 N. H. 217.

In Fletcher v. Evans, 140 Mass. 241, 2 N. E. 837, it was held that if the heirs at law gave to the widow authority to erect a monument upon the family burial lot, they in effect gave her authority to make any reasonable contract for a monument, and, by implication, the right to give to the contractor a license to enter the lot to build a monument, and to remove it if it was not satisfactory or if she did not pay for it.

39. Fentiman v. Smith, 4 East. 107; Wood v. Leadbitter, 13 Mees. & W. 845; Deharo v. United States, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 599, 18 L. Ed. 681; Profile Cotton Mills v. Calhoun Wlater Co., 189 Ala. 181, 66 So. 50; Wheeler v. West, 71 Cal. 126, 11 Pac. 871; Prince v. Case, 10 Conn. 375, 27 Am. Dec. 675; Fluker v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co., 81 Ga. 461, 2 L. R. A. 843, 12 Am. St. Rep. 328, 8 S. E. 529; Wilmington Water Power Co. v. Evans, 166 111. 548,

46 N. E. 1083; Mcbride v. Bair, 134 Iowa, 661, 112 N. W. 169; Elswick v. Ramey, 157 Ky. 639, 163 S. W. 751; Seidensparger v. Spear, 17 Me. 123, 35 Am. Dec. 234; Rangeley v. Snowman, 115 Me. 412, 99 Atl. 41; Cook v. Stearns, 11 Mass. 533; Morse v. Copeland, 2 Gray (Mass.) 302; Hodgkins v. Farrington, 150 Mass. 19, 5 L. R. A. 209, 15 Am. St. Rep. 168, 22 N. E. 73; Wbod v. Michigan Air Line R, Co., 90 Mich. 334, 51 N. W. 263; Johnson v. Skillman, 29 Minn. 95, 43 Am. Rep. 192, 12 N. W. 149; Sterling v. Warden, 51 N. H. 217, 12 Am. Rep. 80; Wiseman v. Lucksinger, 84 N. Y. 31, 38 Am. Rep. 479; Huff v. Mccauley, 53 Pa. St. 206, 91 Am. Dec. 203; Geiger v. Mc-mahon, 31 S. Dak. 95, 139 N. W. 958; Barsdale v. Hairston, 81 Va. 764.

40. Wood v. Leadbitter, 13 Mees. & W. 838; Johnson v. Skill-man, 29 Minn. 95, 43 Am. Rep. 192; East Jersey Iron Co. v. Wright, 32 N. J. Eq. 248; Jackson v. Babcock, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 418; Smyth v. Brooklyn Union Eleaffecting its revocability,41 but there are to be found not infrequent statements or suggestions to the contrary, that the payment of a consideration may, by itself, or in connection with the making of improvements, operate to prevent a revocation.42 How the vated R. Co., 121 App. Div. 282, 105 N. Y. Supp. 601; Williamston etc. R. Co. v. Battle, 66 N. C. 540.