Crosdale v. Lanigan

New York Court of Appeals · Property

Propertyparol licenserevocable licenseStatute of Fraudsequitable estoppeleasementinjunctionoral permission

Facts

The parties owned adjoining lots, and after the plaintiff graded his lot and raised an embankment, the defendant excavated his own lot along the boundary. The plaintiff asked the defendant to sell him two feet of land to build a retaining wall, but the defendant refused; instead, in a letter, he said he had decided to give the plaintiff the two feet asked for to build the wall on, and the plaintiff accepted in writing. The plaintiff then built a wall on the defendant's land at a cost exceeding one hundred dollars, but built it as a loose stone wall without mortar or cement. Within two weeks after completion, the defendant notified the plaintiff's attorney that he had not agreed to give a deed, that the wall was not built according to the understanding, and that he intended to tear it down.

Issue

Does a parol license to build a wall on another's land become irrevocable in equity, so as to create a continuing right in the nature of an easement, merely because the licensee relied on it and expended money constructing the wall? May equity enforce such an executed oral license despite the Statute of Frauds?

Rule

In New York, a parol license to do an act on the land of the licensor is revocable at the licensor's option, although it protects acts done before revocation, even where the parties intended a continuing right and the licensee expended money in reliance on the license. Equity will not convert such an oral license into an irrevocable interest in land, because that would create a servitude or easement in violation of the Statute of Frauds.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Albany, Nina Porter orally told her neighbor, Elias Reed, that he could run a drainage pipe three feet across the edge of her yard to reach the street. Elias spent $4,000 installing the pipe, and Nina then notified him that she was revoking permission and would remove the portion on her land.

If Elias sues in equity to stop Nina from removing the pipe, what is the best result under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a parol license to do an act on another's land justifies what was done before revocation but does not create a continuing interest in land. Reliance expenditures do not transform the license into an irrevocable easement-like right, because doing so would burden land without the formality required by the Statute of Frauds. (Derived from Crosdale v. Lanigan (n.d.).)