The natural rights existing in favor of the owner of land, restrictive of the use of neighboring land, are necessarily suspended in

9. Humphries v. Brogden, 12 Q. B. 739; Sloss Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Sampson, 158 Ala. 590, 48 So. 493; Wilms v. Jess, 94 111. 464, 34 Am. Rep. 242; Lloyd v. Catlin Coal Co., 210 111. 460, 71 N. E. 335; Paull v. Island Coal Co., 44 Ind. App. 218, 88 N. E. 959; Mickle v. Douglas, 75 Iowa, 78, 39 N. W. 198; Marvin v. Brewster Iron Min. Co., 55 N. Y. 538, 556, 14 Am. Rep. 322; Burgner v. Humphrey, 41 Ohio St. 340; Carlin v. Chappel, 101 Pa. St. 348, 47 Am. Rep. 722; Catron v. South Butte Min. Co., 181 Fed. 941.

10. Backhouse v. Bonomi, 9 H.

L. Cas. 503; Smith v. City of Seattle, 18 Wash. 484, 63 Am. St. Rep. 910. But in Pennsylvania a contrary view has been adopted. See ante, Sec. 346, note 90.

11. Goddard, Easements (5th Ed.) 67; Marvin v. Brewster Iron Min. Co., 55 N. Y. 538, 14 Am. Rep. 322; Wilms v. Jess, 94 111. 464, 34 Am. Rep. 242; Jackson Hill Coal & Coke Cc. v. Bales, 183 Ind. 276, 108 N. E. 962.

12. Post, Sec. 354.

13. Hilton v. Granville, 5 Q. B. 701; Horner v. Watson, 79 Pa. St. 242, 21 Am. Rep. 55; Coleman v. Chadwick, 80 Pa. St. 81, 21 Am. Rep. 93.

The natural right of a landowner, precluding a particular mode of utilizing neighboring land, may be suspended by the creation of an easement in favor of such land allowing the use in question, it remaining suspended so long as the easement endures.15

Since, as just indicated, the suspension of a natural right as the result of agreement involves the creation of an easement, a mere license to make a use of one's land in derogation of such right is ineffective except as operating to relieve the licensee from liability for the violation of such right so long as the license is not revoked.16 In jurisdictions, however, in" which a license becomes irrevocable if expenditures are made on the strength thereof,17 the license, after the making of expenditures by the licensee, is equivalent to the creation of an easement in suspension of the natural right.17a In other jurisdictions, it cannot have such an effect, even if acted upon,17b since the doctrine that a license, acted upon, to do acts on the licensee's land interfering with the exercise of an easement upon such land, operates to extinguish the easement,17c has no application to the creation of an easement.17d

14. Goddard, Easements, 524; Shury v. Piggot, 3 Bulst. 339; Hazard v. Robinson, 3 Mason, 272, Fed. Cas. No. 6,281; Cary v. Daniels, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 466.

15. Post, Sec.Sec. 351-354.

16. iDwight, Village of, v. Hayes, 150 111. 273, 41 Am. St. Rep. 367, 37 N. E. 218; Panama Realty Co. v. New York, 158 N. Y. App. Div. 726, 143 N. Y. Supp. 893; Booth-Kelly Co. v. City of Eugene, 67 Ore. 381, 136 Pac. 29.

17. Post, Sec. 349(d).

17a. Smith v. Green, 109 Cal. 228, 41 Pac. 1022; Addison v. Hack, 2 Gill. (Md.) 221; Mc-Broom v. Thompson, 25 Ore. 559, 42 Am. St. Rep. 806; Rerick v. Kern, 14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 267, 16 Am. Dec. 497; Bright v. Virginia & Gold Hill Water Co., 234 Fed. 839, 148 C. C. A. 437.

17b. Dwigbt, Village of, v. Hayes, 150 111. 273, 41 Am. St. Rep. 367, 37 N. E. 244. See Veghte v. Raritan Water Power Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 142.

17c. Post, Sec. 378.

17d. See editorial notes, 19 Harv. Law Rev. 293, 26 Id. 460.