Henry v. Dalton

Rhode Island Supreme Court · Property

PropertyEasementsLicensesStatute of Fraudsparol licenserevocable licenseeasementoral permission

Facts

The parties owned adjoining properties separated by a boundary line, and in 1938 complainant William Henry asked respondent's husband for permission to remove a hedge and use the combined area as a common driveway so Henry could build a two-car garage at the rear of his lot. Dalton gave permission, the hedge was removed, the Henrys filled and graded their strip, and they built the garage. For many years both families used the driveway without incident, but in late 1956 Henry asked the Daltons to sign a written instrument granting a permanent easement, which William Dalton refused, stating he intended to close the driveway. After Dalton's death, respondent through counsel notified complainants in 1957 that permission for driveway use would be withdrawn if her wishes were not respected, and complainants then sued in equity.

Issue

Whether an oral license to use a neighbor's land as a driveway becomes irrevocable in equity when the licensee, relying on the permission, spends money altering his own land and building a garage dependent on that access. More broadly, the question was whether the court should adopt the minority rule that reliance expenditures can convert a parol license into an irrevocable right in land.

Rule

A parol license to do an act on the licensor's land is revocable at the licensor's option, although it justifies acts done before revocation, even when the parties intended a continuing right and the licensee expended money in reliance on the license. A claimed continuing right in another's land that is essentially an easement should be created by written grant in accordance with the statute requiring interests in land to be evidenced by deed.

🔒

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 Providence, Nora Pike orally allowed her neighbor, Devin Cole, to cross a five-foot strip of her land so he could reach a new workshop behind his house. Devin then poured gravel on his own lot and built the workshop, expecting to use the route indefinitely. Eight years later, Nora told Devin the permission was over.

If Devin sues in equity to establish a permanent right to continue using the strip, what is the strongest result under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rule adopted here is that a parol license to use another's land remains revocable at the licensor's option, even if the licensee expended money in reliance on the permission and even if both expected the use to continue. Because Devin seeks what is essentially an easement, it had to be created by written grant rather than by oral permission plus reliance. (Derived from Henry v. Dalton (n.d.).)