Applying such a theory, it has been held that if the licensee is allowed to recover from the licensor the value of his improvements, he cannot thereafter assert that the license is irrevocable. Oster v. Broe, 161 Ind. 131, 64 N. E. 918.

55. Thomas v. Sorrell, Vaughan

330, 351; Wood v. Leadbitter, 13 Mees. & W. 838; Miller v. State, 39 Ind. 267; Long v. Buchanan, 27 Md. 502, 92 Am. Dec. 653; Sterling v. Warden, 51 N. H. 217, 12 Am. Rep. 80; Williamston etc. R. Co. v. Battle, 66 N. C. 540; Metcalf v. Hart, 3 Wyo. 513, 31 Am. St. Rep. 122, 27 Pac. 900, 31 Pac. 407.

Occasionally the courts have mistakenly referred to what is properly a valid grant of a right of profit, as a license coupled with an interest, Funk v. Halde-man, 53 Pa. 229; Mcleod v. Dial, 63 Ark. 10, 37 S. W. 306.

A license is obviously not coupled with a grant or interest in the sense referred to, so as to be irrevocable,

56. Wood v. Manley, 11 Ad. & El. 34; Walker Furniture Co. v. Dyson, 32 Dist. Col. A'.pp. 90, 19 L. R. A. N. S. 606; Parker v. Barlow, 93 Ga. 700, 21 S. E. 213; Rogers v. Cox, 96 Ind. 157, 49 Am. Rep. 152; Giles v. Simonds, 15 Gray (Mass.) 441, 77 Am. Dec. 373; Heath v. Randall, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 195; Lambert v. Robinson, 162 Mass. 34, 44 Am. St. Rep. 326, 37 N. E. 753.

57. Patrick v. Colerick, 3 Mees.

& W. 483; Giles v. Simonds, 15 Gray (Mass.) 44L 77 Am. Dec. 373; Sterling v. Warden, 51 N. H. 217, 12 Am. Rep. 80; White v. Elwell, 48 Me. 360, 77 Am. Dec. 231.

58. Wood v. Leadbitter, 13 Mees. & W. 828.

59. See Newberry v. Chicago Lumbering Co., 154 Mich. 84, 117 N. W. 592; and infra, this section section, note 63.

60. Post, Sec. 363(c).

If the licensee lias failed to secure any interest by reason of the invalidity of the attempted grant of the interest.61 So it has been frequently decided that, an oral sale of growing trees being insufficient to pass them as such,62 the vendee has merely a revocable license to cut the trees, while, after they are cut, the sale is regarded as taking effect on them, as intended, in their chattel character, and then the vendee, having an interest in the trees, has an irrevocable license to enter on the land to remove them.63 And a like doctrine has been applied in connection with a sale of minerals in or fixtures upon the land which, as being oral merely. is not effective as a transfer thereof.64

If what was originally a license has become, by the application of the doctrine of part performance or equitable estoppel, in effect an easement, it no doubt remains a burden upon the land in the hands of a subsequent purchaser of the land, except when he is a purchaser for value and without notice.65 And a subse61. Crosby v. Wadsworth, 6 East, 602; Wood v. Leadbitter, 13 Mees & W. 838; Long v. Buchanan, 27 Md. 502, 92 Am. Dec. 653.

62. Ante, Sec. 261, note 82.

63. Colby Hinkley Co. v. Jordan, 146 Ala. 634, 41 So. 962; Jenkins v. Lykes, 19 Fla. 148, 45 Am. Rep. 19; Cool v. Peters Box & Lumber Co., 87 Ind. 531; Garner v. Mahoney, 115 Iowa, 356, 88 N. W. 828; Martin v. Johnson, 105 Me. 156, 73 Atl. 963; Giles v. Simonds, 15 Gray (Mass.) 441, 77 Am. Dec. 373; United Soc. v. Brooks, 145 Mass. 410. 14 N. E. 622: White v. King, 87 Mich. 107, 49 N. W. 518; Walton v. Lowrey, 74 Miss. 484, 21 So. 243; Pierre-pont v. Barnard, 6 N. Y. 279; Fish v. Capwell, 18 R. I. 667, 49 Am. St. Rep. 807, 25 L. R. A.

159, 29 Atl. 840; Polk v. Carney. 17 S. D. 436, 97 N W. 360; Welever v. Advance Suingle Co., 34 Wash. 331, 75 Pac. 863; Bru. ley v. Garvin, 105 Wis. 625, 48 L. R. A. 839, 81 N. W. 1038.

In Cool v. Peters Box Co., 87 Ind. 531, it was considered that even if the trees were cut by a stranger, the contract of sale operated to vest title thereto in the original vendee, who was consequently entitled to sue the stranger for their conversion.

64. Mc Cullagh v. Rains, 75 Kan. 458, 89 Pac. 1041; Wetospsky v. New Haven Gas Light Co., 88 Conn. 1, 90 Atl. 30; Whitaker v. Cawthorne, 14 N. Car. 389.

65. That an innocent purchaser for value is protected, see Prince v. Case, 10 Conn. 375, 27 Am. Dec.

Quent purchaser with notice has no more right than has his vendor to revoke the license, so called.66 The licensee has an equity against the licensor, the right to enforce which as against a purchaser from the licensor is determined by the ordinary rule for determining priorities in equity.67

------(e) Mode of revocation. A license may be revoked either by express words to that effect, or by an act on the part of the licensor indicating an intention to revoke it,68 as when he makes its exercise impossible.69 It is likewise revoked by a conveyance of the land to a third person,70 or by the death of the

675; Clark v. Close, 43 Iowa, 92; Wilkins v. Irvine, 33 Ohio St. 138; Wheaton v. Cutler, 84 Vt. 476, 79 Atl. 1091.

66. Russell v. Hubbard, 59 111. 335; Arterburn v. Beard, 86 Neb. 733, 126 N. W. 379; Joseph v. Wild, 146 Ind. 249, 45 N. E. 467; Portman v. Topliff, 138 Iowa, 19, 115 N. W. 508; Carrolton Telephone Exchange Co. v. Spicer, 177 Ky. 340, 197 S. W. 827; Shaw v. Profitt, 57 Ore. 192, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 63, 109 Pac. 584, 110 Pac. 1092.

67. See Ewart, Estoppel, 199 and post, Sec. 566.

68. Wood v. Leadbitter, 13 Mees. & W. 838; Prince v. Case, 10 Conn. 375, 27 Am. Dec. 675; Pluker v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co., 81 Ga. 461, 12 Am. St. Rep. 328, 2 L. R. A. 843, 8 S. E. 529; Forbes v. Balenseifer, 74 111. 183; Fischer v. Johnson, 106 Iowa, 181, 76 N. W. 658; Hodg-kins v. Farrington, 150 Mass. 19, 5 L. R. A. 209, 15 Am. St. Rep. 168, 22 N. E. 73; Pitzman, v. Boyce, 111 Mo. 387, 33 Am. St.

Rep. 536; Carleton v. Redington 21 N. H. 291,311.

But it has been held that the institution of an action of ejectment by the licensor against the licensee does not effect a revocation for the purpose of that action. Somers v. Somers, 83 Conn. 156, 76 Atl. 45.

69. Hyde v. Graham, 1 Hurlst. & C. 593; Forbes v. Balenseifer, 74 111. 183; Fowler v. Hyland, 48 Mich. 179, 12 N. W. 26; Pitzman v. Boyce, 111 Mo. 387, 33 Am. St. Rep. 536, 19 S. W. 1104; Quimby v. Straw, 71 N. H. 160, 51 Atl. 656; West v. Shaw, 61 Wash. 227, 112 Pac. 243; Hazelton v. Putnam, 3 Pin. (Wis.) 107, 54 Am. Dec. 158.