As an executory contract to convey an easement or as an attempt to grant an easement, invalid because oral.49 Applying the above considerations, if an oral permission to make a particular use of land is construed as an attempt to create an easement, that is, an interest in the land of a more or less permanent character, which is therefore invalid as not being in writing, the effect of the making of improvements on the faith thereof will be to create an equitable right in accordance with the intended gift or grant; while if such permission is merely a license, and not an attempt to create an easement, then it is properly revocable after as before the making of improvements. Accordingly, the decisions that a license cannot be revoked after the making of improvements on the faith thereof appear properly to involve merely the assertion of a rule of construction, that an oral permission to make a particular use of land, which use is such that it will be necessary or desirable to make expenditures in order to avail oneself of the permission, is to be construed as an attempt orally to grant an easement in the land, which is absolutely invalid as a grant, but operates by way of equitable estoppel in favor of the intended grantee if he subsequently makes expenditures on the assumption that he acquired an easement thereby, although, as a matter of fact, he originally acquired, by reason of the invalidity of the grant, merely a license. On the other hand, the decisions that a license can be re49. See Flickinger v. Shaw, 87 Cal. 126, 22 Am. St. Rep. 234, 11 L. R. A. 134. 25 Pac. 268; Legg v. Horn. 45 Conn. 415; St. Louis Nat. Stock Yards Co. v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 112 111. 384, 54 Am. Rep. 243; Willoughby v. Lawrence, 116 I!!. 11, 56 Am. Rep. 758, 4 N. E. 356; Johnson v. Skillman, 29 Minn. 95, 43 Am. Rep. 192, 12 N. W. 149; Binder v. Weinberg, 94 Miss. 817, 48 So. 1013; Lewis v. Patton. 42 Mont. 528, 113 Pac. 745: Wiseman v. Lucksinger, 84 N. Y. 31, 38 Am. Rep. 479; East India Company v. Vincent, 2 Atk. 83; Devonshire v. Eglin. 14 Beav. 530; Plimmer v. Wellington, L. R. 9 App. Cas. 699; Mcmanus v. Cooke, 35 Ch. Div. 681.

44. Davis v. Tway, 16 Ariz. 566, L. R. A. 1915E, 604, 147 Pac. 750; Stoner v. Zucker. 148 Cal. 516, 7 Ann. Cas 704, 113 Am. St. Rep. 301, 83 Pac. 808; Gyra v. Windier, 40 Colo. 366, 13 Ann. Cas. 841, 91 Pac. 36; Alderman v. New Haven, 81 Conn. 137, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 74, 70 Atl. 626; Cook v. Pridgen, 45 Ga. 331, 12 Am. Rep. 582; Cherokee Mills v. Standard Cotton Mills, 138 Ga. 856, 76 S. E. 373 (statute); Mc-reynolds v. Harrigfield, 26 Idaho, 26, 140 Pac. 1096; Girard v. Lehigh Stone Co., 280 111. 479, 117 N. E. 698; Ferguson v. Spencer, 127 Ind. 66, 25 N. E. 1035; Joseph v. Wild, 146 Ind. 249, 45 N. E. 467; Decorah Woolen Mill Co. v. Greer, 49 Iowa, 490; Hansen v. Farmers' Co-operative Creamery, 106 Iowa, 167, 76 N. W. 652; Patterson v. City of Burlington, 141 Iowa, 291, 119 N. W. 593; Kastnev v. Benz, 67 Kan. 486, 73 Pac. 67; Smyre v. Kiowa County, 89 Kan. 664, 132 Pac. 209; Cape Girardeau & T. B. T. R. Co. v. St. Louis & G. Rwy. Co., 222 Mo. 461, 121 S. W. 300; Great Falls Water works Co. v. Great North

Ry. Co., 21 Mont. 487, 54 Pac. 963; Arterburn v. Beard. 86 Xeb. 733, 126 X. W. 379. Raritar Water Power Co. v. Veghte, 21 N. J. Eq. 142; Van Horn v. Clark, 56 N. J. Eq. 476, 40 Atl. 203; Polakoff v. Halphen. 83 N. J. Eq. 126, 89 Atl. 996 (But soe, as to New Jersey, Lawrence v. Springer, 49 N. J. Eq. 2S9, 31 Am. St. Rep. 702, 24 Atl. 993); Lee v. Mo-leod, 12 Nev. 280; Bowman v. Bowman, 35 Or. 279, 27 Pac. 546; Kelsey v. Bertram. 63 Ore. 563, 127 Pac. 777; Rerick v. Kern, 14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 267; Pierce v. Cleland, 133 Pa. 189, 7 L. R. A. 752, 19 Atl. 352; Butz v. Richland Twp., 28 S. Dak. 442, 134 N. W. 895 (dictum); Risien v. Brown, 73 Tex. 135, 10 S. W. 661 (dictum); Clark v. Glidden, 60 Vt. 702, 15 Atl. 358; Barre v. Perry & Scribner, 82 Vt. 301, 73 Atl. 574; Phillips v. Cutler, 89 Vt. 233, 95 Atl. 4X7; Kent v. Dobqns, 112 Va. 586, 72 S. E. L39 (semble); Gustin v. Halting, 20 Wyo. 1, 33 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1914C, 911, 121 Pac. 522.

On this theory it has been decided that if two adjoining effect, that the making of improvements by a licensee is not ground for denying to the licensor the right of revocation which is otherwise incident to a license.45 owners of land erect buildings together with an oral agreement as to the mutual use of staircases or hallways, each has in effect a license, which cannot be withdrawn after the buildings have been constructed on the faith of the agreement. Clark v. Henckel (Md.), 26 Atl. 1039; Binder v. Weinberg, 94 Miss. 817, 48 So. 1013; Cleland's Appeal, 133 Pa. 189. 7 L. R. A. 752, 19 Atl. 352.

45. Hicks v. Swift Creek Mill Co., 133 Ala. 411, 91 Am. St. Rep. 38, 57 L. R. A. 720, 31 So. 947; Howes v. Barmon, 11 Idaho, 64, 69 L. R. A. 568, 114 Am. St. Rep. 255, 81 Pac. 48 (dictum); St. Louis Nat. Stock Yards v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 112 111. 384, 54 Am. Rep. 243; Dwight v. Hayes, 150 111. 273, 41 Am. St. Rep. 367, 37 N. E. 218; Lambe v. Manning, 171 I11. 612, 49 N. E. 509; Morse v. Lorenz, 262 I11. 115, 104 N. E. 237 (But see, as to Illinois, Ashelford v. Willis, 194 111. 492, 62 N. E. 817); Moulton v. Faught, 41 Me. 298; Hodgkins v. Farring-ton, 150 Mass. 19, 15 Am. St. Rep. 168, 5 L. R. A. 209, 22 N. E. 73; Nowlin Lumber Co., v. Wilson, 119 Mich. 406, 78 N. W. 338; Minneapolis Mill Co. v. Minneapolis & St. L. Rwy. Co., 51 Minn. 304, 53 N. W. 639 (But see as to Minnesota, dictum in St. John v. Sinclair, 108 Minn. 274, 122 N. W. 164 ); Belzoni Oil

Co. v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 94 Miss. 58, 47 So. 468 (But see, at to Mississippi, Binder v. Weinberg, 94 Miss. 817, 48 So. 1013 ); Great Falls Waterworks v. Great Northern Rwy. Co., 21 Mont. 487, 54 Pac. 963; Archer v. Chicago M. &. St. P. Rwy. Co., 41 Mont. 56, 137 Am. St. Rep. 692, 108 Pac. 571; Houston v. Laffee, 46 N. H. 505; Batchelder v. Hib-bard, 58 N. H. 269; Crosdale v. Lanigan, 129 N. Y. 604, 26 Am. St. Rep. 551, 29 N. E. 824; Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Durham & N. Ry. Co., 104 N. Car. 658, 10 S. E. 659; Rodefer v. Pittsburgh. etc., R. Co., 72 Ohio St. 272, 70 L. R. A. 844, 74 N. E. 183; Yeager v. Tuning, 79 Ohio St. 121, 86 N. E. 657; Fowler v. Delaplaine, 79 Ohio St. 279, 87 N. E. 260; Foster v. Browning, 4 R. I. 47; Nunnelly v. Southern Iron Co., 94 Tenn. 397, 29 S. W. 361; Yeager v. Woodruff, 17 Utah, 361, 53 Pac. 1045 (semble); Hathaway v. Yakima Water, etc., Co., 14 Wash. 469, 53 Am. St. Rep. 874, 44 Pac. 896; Rhoades v. Barnes, 54 Wash. 145, 102 Pac. 884; Pifer v. Brown, 43 W. Va. 412, 49 L. R. A. 497, 27 S. E. 399; Thoemke v. Fiedler, 91 Wis. 386, 64 N. W. 1030; Huber v. Stark, 124 Wis. 359, 109 Am. St. Rep. 937, 102 N. W. 12; (But see, as to Wisconsin, Mcdougald v. New Richmond Roller Mills Co., 125 Wis. 121, 103 N. W. 244; Waterthese latter cases are ordinarily based on the theory, firstly, that one who takes a license is presumed to know that, as a matter of law, a license is revocable, and consequently cannot assert that he was misled by the license into making improvements as if he had a more or less permanent interest in the land, and, secondly, that, in so far as the license is oral, as is usually the case, the contrary view involves a violation of the Statute of Frauds, in allowing what is in effect a permanent or quasi permanent interest in land to be created orally. A consideration of the question on principle would seem to lead to the conclusion that the two groups of decisions are not so discordant as at first sight appears, and that the difference of view really centers about a question of the construction of the license, so called, as to whether it was intended merely as a license, or as the grant of an easement, the privilege being in the former case subject to withdrawal in spite of the improvements, but not in the latter. In other words, it being generally recognized 46-47 that, in the case of an oral gift of land, if the donee makes improvements on the faith of the gift, equity will enforce the gift, on the theory of part performance or equitable estoppel, it necessarily follows that an oral gift of an easement or right of profit in the land will likewise be enforced in equity in case the donee makes improvements on the faith therof.48 An attempted oral grant or "agreement for" an easement, in return for a valuable consideration, will a fortiori be enforced in equity, if followed by improvements on the faith thereof, whether it be regarded for this purpose man v. Norwalk, 145 Wis. 663, 130 N. W. 479.)