70. Wallis v. Harrison, 4 Mees. & W. 538; Hicks v. Swift Creek Mill Co., 133 Ala. 411, 91 Am. St. Rep. 38, 57 L. R. A. 720, 31 So. 947; Wetospsky v. New Haven Gas Light Co., 88 Conn. 1, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 968, 90 Atl. 30; Jenkins v. Lykes, 19 Fla. 148, 45 Am. Rep. 19; High v. Jasper Mfg. Co., 57 Fla. 437, 49 So. 156; Kamplicensor,71 since a license cannot justify a trespass on land as against the licensor's grantee, heir or devisee.72

- (f) Termination otherwise than by revocation.

A license may, as above indicated, cease to be operative by reason of its revocation, that is, by reason of the landowner's indication of an intention to that effect,73 or by reason of the land having passed into the hands of a person other than the licensor.74 It may also cease to be operative by force of the terms of the license itself, as when it permits only one act by the licensee, and that act has been done, or the license is limited as to time,75 or it is subject to a house v. Gaffner, 73 111. 453; Mc-intyre v. Harty, 236 111. 629, 86 N. E. 581; Seidensparger v. Spear, 17 Me. 123, 35 Am. Dec. 234; Drake v. Wells, 11 Allen (Mass.) 141; Minneapolis, etc. R. Co. v. Marble, 112 Mich. 4, 70 N. W. 319; Minneapolis Western Ry. Co. v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 58 Minn. 128, 59 N. W. 983; Houx v. Seat, 26 Mo. 178, 72 Am. Dec. 202 (but see Bracht v. Johnson, 187 Mo. App. 220, 173 S. W. 692); Eckerson v. Crippen, 110 N. Y. 585, 1 L. R. A. 487, 18 N. E. 443; Vollmer's Appeal, 61 Pa. St. 118; Price etc. Co. v Madison, 17 S. D. 247, 95 N. W. 933; U. S. Coal & Oil Co. v. Harrison, 71 W. Va. 217, 47 L. R. A. N. S.) 870, 76 S. E. 346; Coleman v. Foster, 1 Hurlst. & N. 37 (lease).

So it is revoked by the conveyance of a right of user in the land the exercise of which is inconsistent with the enjoyment of the license. Salinger v. North American Woolen Mills Co., 70 W. Va. 151, 73 S. E. 312; Archer v. Chicago M. & St. P. R. Co.,

41 Mont. 56, 137 Am. St. Rep. 692, 108 Pac. 571.

71. Deharo v. United States, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 599, 18 L. Ed. 681; Jensen v. Hunter, 108 Cal. xvii, 41 Pac. 14; Lambe v. Manning, 171 111. 612. 49 N. E. 509; Spacy v. Evans, 152 Ind. 431, 52 N. E. 605; Hodgkins v. Farrington, 150 Mass. 19, 5 L. R. A. 209, 15 Am. St. Rep. 168, 22 N. E. 73; Estelle v. Peacock, 48 Mich. 469, 12 N. W. 659; East Jersey Iron Co. v. Wright, 32 N. J. Eq. 248; Eggles-ton v. New York & H. R. Co.. 35 Barb (N. Y.) 162; Chavez v. Tor-lina, 15 N. Mex. 53, 99 Pac. 690; Bridges v. Purcell, 18 N. C. 492; Caledonian etc. School v. Kent, 86 Vt. 151, 84 Atl. 26; Hazelton v. Putnam, 3 Chand. (Wis.) 117, 3 Pin. 107, 54 Am. Dec. 158.

72. See note in 14 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 73.

73. Ante, this section, notes 68, 69.

74. Ante, this section, notes 70, 71.

75. Reed v. Merrefield. 10 Mete. 155; Gilmore v. Wilson, 53 Pa.

Condition which has been violated.76 It may also come to an end by reason of the expiration of a reasonable time for acting thereunder,77 or by reason of its abandonment by the licensee.78 And a license being personal to the licensee, it becomes inoperative upon his death.78a A license not being assignable, an attempted assignment by the licensee of his rights thereunder has been regarded as bringing the license to an end,79 the courts following in this regard the analogy of a tenancy at will. It has also been regarded as terminated by a sale of the land, even prior to a conveyance in pursuance thereof, the purchaser being let into possession,80 and also by the setting off of the land under execution against the owner.81

- (g) Effect of termination. The termination of a license, by revocation or otherwise, while it precludes any subsequent acts on the authority of the license, does not affect the validity of acts previously done thereunder.82 If the licensee, in the course of the

194; Oesting v. New Bedford, 210 Mass. 39G, 96 N. E. 1095; Glynn v George, 20 N. H. 114.

76 Pratt v. Ogden, 34 N. Y. 20.

77. Ante,Sec. 349(c), note 36.

78. East Jersey Iron Co. v. Wright, 32 N. J. Eq. 248; Lake Erie R. Co. v. Michener, 117 Ind. 465, 20 N. E. 254.

78a. Prince v. Case, 10 Conn. 375, 27 Am. Dec. 675; Ruggles v. Lesure, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 187; Page v. Gaskill, 84 N. J. L. 615, 87 Atl. 460; Hazelton v. Putnam, 3 Chand. (Wis.) 117, 3 Pin. 107, 54 Am. Dec. 158.

As to the effect, in case of a license given to two or more persons jointly, of the death of one, see Rust v. Conrad, 47 Mich. 449,

Exercise of his rights under the license, has placed anything on the land, he is entitled, upon revocation of the license, to a reasonable time within which to remove it.83

41 Am. Rep. 720, 11 N. W. 265; Chandler v. Spear. 22 Vt. 388.

79. Bates v. Duncan, 64 Ark. 339, 62 Am. St. Rep. 190 42 S. W. 410; Fischer v. Johnson, 106 Iowa, 181, 76 N. W. 658; Blais-dell v. Portsmouth etc. R. Co., 51 N. H. 483; Dark v. Johnston, 55 Pa. 164, 93 Am. Dec. 732; Polk v. Carney, 17 S. Dak. 436, 97 N. W. 360.

80. Bruley v. Garvin, 105 Wis. 625, 48 L. R. A. 839, 81 X. W. 1038.

81. Taylor v. Gerrish, 59 X. H. 569.

82. Foot v. New Haven etc. Co., 23 Conn. 214; Owens v. Lewis, 46 Ind. 488, 15 Am. Rep. 295; Stevens v. Stevens, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 251, 45 Am. Dec. '203; Blaisdell v.

There is no obligation upon the licensee, on revocation of the license, to restore the land to the condition in which it was before he made changes therein or placed structures thereon, under authority of the license.84

The question of the right to revoke a license is entirely distinct from the question whether, in revoking it, the licensor violates a contract on his part, express or implied, not to revoke it. Though the revocation is perfectly valid and effective, the licensor may be liable in damages for having revoked it.85

- (h) Assignment of license. A license creates a privilege personal to the licensee, which cannot ordinarily be transferred by him to another.86 If the license is coupled with an interest,86a however, it enures to the benefit of one to whom the interest is assigned,87 that is, as the original grantee of things upon or in the land may enter to remove them, so any person acquiring title to them from him may do so. And a license, so called, which is irrevocable by reason of expenditures by the licensee on the strength thereof,88 is presumably assignable, in the sense that the privilege of making the particular use of another's land passes as incident to the transfer of land of the licensee for the benefit of which the license was given,89 that is, as an appurtenant easement.