justified by a right enforceable against the world in general. If the act is merely permitted by the possessor of the servient land, the doer has not an easement, but only a license-not a right, but a liberty. Licenses are only permissions and are always revocable by the licensor. Also, they are personal to the licensee, but sometimes they may include the servants and agents or family or friends of a person as subordinate or co-licensees. If the licensor ceases to have such rights in a piece of land as enable him to control its use, his permissions to use are clearly ineffective and cannot be relied on as a defense to a charge of trespassing. The licensor himself, however, cannot revoke a license, and then before notifying the licensee, hold him liable as a trespasser for acts done in reliance on the license after its secret revocation.

Jones gives oral permission to Smith to cross Jones's lot to reach Smith's house. This is a license to Smith. It does not give Smith a right to cross the lot against Jones's wish. The license merely makes the use legal. Jones may at any time revoke this permission; but he cannot hold Smith liable as a trespasser for using the way, before he received notice of the revocation. Smith cannot transfer his license to anyone else; but if the permission was a general one to afford a sole means of access to Smith's house for all purposes, it may be construed as a license not only to Smith, but to members of his family, his servants, agents and friends, and to tradespeople and all others who come to see him. Jones may revoke the permission at any time as to any or all of these. If he transfers his lot to another, or dies, whoever suc

ceeds to possession may without notice hold as a trespasser anyone who continues the use; for the permission of Jones is not effective against any possessor except Jones.

§ 78. Examples of licenses. Licenses to use land are very common-much more common than are easements. Every store keeper gives an implied license to the public to enter and trade with him. This permission a store keeper may revoke at any time and he may bar at any time any particular member of the public for no reason at all. Every householder gives implied permission to anyone who wishes to see him to enter his premises for the purpose. Theater tickets are merely licenses, which may be revoked by the management at any time, although if this is done without good cause, it will be a breach of contract unless a privilege to revoke without liability is expressly retained. Under any circumstances, a revocation without cause will entitle the ticket holder to a return of the unearned consideration. The licensee of the ordinary theatre ticket is not the original purchaser necessarily, but whoever holds it when the doors open for the performance. Railroads and hotel keepers give implied licenses to the public to enter their buildings, offices, and cars for the purpose of engaging or using their facilities. The acceptance of a guest or passenger gives a license to use the accommodations engaged.

A lodger has a mere license to occupy his room and not a lease on it. If the proprietor of the house, even without cause, revokes his license, the lodger cannot insist on staying. If he refuses to go, the proprietor may put him

off the premises, using no unnecessary force and causing no unnecessary insult and no serious injury to him, without becoming responsible for assault. However, the lodger will have an action for breach of contract, if he has an agreement for lodging extending beyond the time of expulsion and no good cause for the termination of the license is shown.

§ 79. Defective agreement for something more than a license. Sometimes an agreement is made for the creation of an easement or some other property right which does not effectually create the right because of some deficiency in form. For instance, an easement of way is stipulated for orally, or, in a jurisdiction where a grant of real property must be under seal, in an unsealed written instrument. The result at law will be a mere license. The consent to use is present; the grant of a legal right to use is defective. However, in many cases, if the instru ment is a written contract there may be raised an equitable interest corresponding to the legal interest intendedfor instance, an equitable right of way instead of an easement. This equitable easement will be due to the equitable principles of specific performance which are enforced under circumstances and conditions considered in the article on Equity Jurisdiction in Volume VII of this work.

For the creation of an irrevocable right by estoppel against the licensor, see § 25, above. For the specific enforcement of oral contracts for easements, when acted upon by the licensee, see the article on Equity Jurisdiction in Volume VII of this work. In no case, however,

will what was clearly intended as a mere revocable permission by the parties be erected into an easement or other irrevocable right by the court. A license given by deed is still a license and nothing more, and no expense by the licensee will make it more.

§ 80. "Irrevocable licenses." Agreements for use which are enforced as creating equitable easements are sometimes called "irrevocable licenses," but this is a misnomer. Licenses are always revocable, being merely permissions (§ 77, above). If a right outlasts the duration of a licensor's consent, it is not an "irrevocable license" but a right independent of the continuance of the license.

There is another class of so-called "irrevocable licenses" concerning which a word should be said. It is frequently stated that "a license coupled with an interest is irrevocable." Certainly this does not mean all it literally says, for no license is irrevocable, properly speaking; and an irrevocable right is not always created when a person has a license and is interested collaterally in its continuance. The only type of case falling within this vague expression in which we have a present interest is this: X buys hay of Y and with Y's consent leaves it on Y's land. He afterwards returns to get it and Y refuses him entrance and also refuses to deliver the hay. X has a right to enter and cart away the hay provided he can do so without a serious personal encounter with Y (25). He would not be justified in doing Y great bodily harm, though the harm were a necessary result of forcing an

(25) Wood v. Manley, 11 A. & E. 34.

entry (26). X's right of using Y's land for the purpose of removing the hay is not an "irrevocable license." The implied license to enter, given when the sale was made, has been revoked, but X has nevertheless a limited right of self-help given him by law under the particular circumstances of the case, which entitles him to act as though the license were still in existence. If Y should deliver the hay at his boundary line, X's right of entering would be gone.

(26) Churchill v. Hulbert, 110 Mass. 42,