Henry v. Dalton
151 A.2d 362 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parol license to do an act on the land of another is revocable at the licensor's option, even if the licensee has expended money in reliance on the license.
Facts:
- In 1922, complainants William and his wife (the Henrys) purchased a house next to the property later purchased by respondent Jane Dalton and her husband.
- Initially separated by a fence, the boundary was later marked by a hedge, the cost of which was shared between the neighbors.
- In 1938, William Henry obtained oral permission from William Dalton to remove the hedge and create a common driveway over both properties to access a new two-car garage Henry planned to build.
- Relying on this permission, the Henrys constructed the two-car garage and filled in their portion of the land to bring it to grade with the Daltons' property.
- For nearly two decades, from 1938 until 1957, both families used the shared driveway without incident.
- In November 1956, when the Henrys were planning to sell their home, they asked the Daltons to execute a formal written easement agreement.
- William Dalton, who was seriously ill, refused to sign the agreement and stated his intention to close the driveway.
- After William Dalton's death, Jane Dalton, through her attorney, formally notified the Henrys that their permission to use the driveway would be withdrawn.
Procedural Posture:
- The complainants, the Henrys, filed a bill in equity in the Rhode Island Superior Court (a trial court) to establish a permanent right to use a driveway on the land of the respondent, Jane Dalton.
- The Superior Court conducted a hearing on the bill, answer, and proof.
- Following the hearing, the Superior Court entered a decree denying the Henrys' request and dismissing their complaint.
- The Henrys (complainants-appellants) prosecuted an appeal from the Superior Court's decree to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
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 parol license to use a portion of a licensor's land for a shared driveway become irrevocable when the licensee, in reliance on the license, expends money and labor to construct a garage and improve the land?
Opinions:
Majority - Powers, J.
No. A parol license to use another's land does not become irrevocable upon the licensee's expenditure of money in reliance thereon. The court adopts the majority rule, which holds that a license is revocable at the will of the licensor. This approach upholds the public policy behind the Statute of Frauds, which requires that interests in land, such as easements, be created by a written instrument to ensure certainty and security in property titles. The court explicitly rejects the minority rule, which would apply equitable estoppel to make such a license irrevocable, reasoning that it is better to enforce the statutory requirement for written deeds than to allow judges to transform a license into a grant based on the specific equities of a case. To do otherwise would burden lands with restrictions founded on easily misunderstood oral agreements.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Rhode Island's adherence to the majority rule regarding the revocability of parol licenses, prioritizing the certainty of title and the formal requirements of the Statute of Frauds over the equitable doctrine of reliance-based estoppel. The case serves as a stark precedent that investments made based on informal, oral permission for land use are undertaken at the licensee's own risk. For future cases, this ruling makes it difficult for parties to claim irrevocable rights in another's land without a formal, written grant, thereby discouraging litigation based on informal understandings and reinforcing the importance of proper legal instruments in real property transactions.
Unlock the full brief for Henry v. Dalton