Baseball Publishing Co. v. Bruton
302 Mass. 54 (1938)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An unsealed written agreement granting an exclusive right to use real property for a specific purpose for a term of years, while not a lease, creates an equitable interest in the nature of an easement in gross, which is irrevocable and may be enforced by specific performance.
Facts:
- On October 9, 1934, Baseball Publishing Co. obtained a signed writing from Bruton giving it the 'exclusive right and privilege' to maintain a billboard on a building Bruton owned.
- The agreement was for one year with an option to renew for four additional years for an annual payment of $25.
- On November 10, 1934, Baseball Publishing Co. accepted the agreement in writing and sent a $25 check for the first year, which Bruton returned.
- Despite the returned check, Baseball Publishing Co. erected and maintained the sign.
- In 1935 and 1936, Baseball Publishing Co. sent renewal checks for $25, both of which Bruton returned.
- On February 23, 1937, Bruton caused the sign to be removed from the wall.
Procedural Posture:
- Baseball Publishing Co. (plaintiff) brought a bill in equity for specific performance against Bruton (defendant).
- The trial court judge ruled that the writing was a contract to give a license.
- Despite the ruling on the nature of the writing, the trial court entered a final decree granting specific performance with damages and costs in favor of the plaintiff.
- Bruton (defendant-appellant) appealed the final decree to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a written agreement granting an exclusive right to maintain an advertising sign on a building's wall for a renewable term, in exchange for consideration, create a revocable license or an enforceable property interest in the nature of an easement?
Opinions:
Majority - Lummus, J.
No, the agreement creates an enforceable property interest. While the writing is not a lease because it does not transfer possession of the property, it is also more than a mere license, which is revocable at will. The agreement's grant of an 'exclusive right and privilege' creates a right in the nature of an easement in gross. Although creating a legal easement traditionally requires a sealed deed, equity will treat an enforceable unsealed contract for an easement as having created an equitable easement. Therefore, the right is not revocable by the landowner, and the agreement is specifically enforceable.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for its application of equitable principles to enforce a commercial agreement that falls between a formal lease and a simple license. By classifying the right as an 'easement in gross' created in equity, the court provides stability and predictability for businesses relying on long-term use of property, such as for advertising billboards. The ruling establishes that the substance of the right granted—exclusivity and duration—matters more than the formal title of the document, preventing property owners from unilaterally revoking such agreements and limiting the other party to only monetary damages. It solidifies the idea that specific performance is an available remedy to protect these recognized equitable property interests.
Unlock the full brief for Baseball Publishing Co. v. Bruton