Shepard Et Ux. v. Purvine
248 P.2d 352, 196 Or. 348 (1952)
Rule of Law:
An oral license to use another's land becomes irrevocable if the licensee, acting in reliance on the license, makes substantial expenditures on permanent and valuable improvements.
Facts:
- For over 30 years, Ralph and Lela Shepard, whose farm adjoined C.M. Purvine's land, had poor quality well water and were forced to haul pure water for household use.
- In 1913, Shepard offered to purchase water rights and a right of way from Purvine for $100, but Purvine declined to sell.
- Over the following decades, the Shepards and Purvines became very friendly and neighborly.
- In February 1944, C.M. Purvine orally granted the Shepards permission to take water from a specific spring on his land for their domestic purposes.
- Purvine suggested the Shepards file an application for a water right with the state engineer, which they did.
- Relying on Purvine's oral permission, the Shepards spent over $700 to purchase and install a 2,200-foot permanent pipeline from the spring across Purvine's land to their own houses and buildings.
- The installation work was conducted openly over several weeks, and the pipe was buried deep enough not to interfere with ordinary farming operations.
- C.M. Purvine died in 1946, and his heirs (the defendants) later attempted to revoke the permission to use the water and maintain the pipeline.
Procedural Posture:
- Ralph and Lela Shepard (plaintiffs) filed a suit for a declaratory judgment against the heirs of C.M. Purvine (defendants) in an Oregon trial court.
- The Shepards sought to establish a permanent right of way for their pipeline and a permanent water right.
- The trial court entered a decree in favor of the defendants and dismissed the Shepards' complaint.
- The Shepards, as appellants, appealed the trial court's decree to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
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 an oral license to use another's land for a pipeline and water access become irrevocable when the licensee, in reliance on that license, makes substantial and permanent improvements at their own expense?
Opinions:
Majority - Tooze, J.
Yes, the oral license became irrevocable. Under Oregon law, which follows a minority rule, a parol (oral) license to use land becomes irrevocable if the licensee makes permanent and valuable improvements in reliance thereon. The court resolved the conflicting testimony about the agreement's terms by examining the surrounding circumstances, concluding that the Shepards' version was more credible. The substantial expense and permanent nature of the pipeline were inconsistent with a merely temporary, revocable license. Therefore, it would be inequitable and unjust to permit the defendants to revoke the license, and they are estopped from denying the Shepards' rights.
Analysis:
This case solidifies Oregon's minority rule that a parol license, which is normally revocable at will, becomes irrevocable through the doctrine of estoppel when the licensee makes substantial expenditures on permanent improvements in reliance on the agreement. It serves as a key precedent in property law, demonstrating how a court of equity can enforce an oral agreement concerning land that might otherwise be unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The court's detailed analysis of circumstantial evidence provides a valuable framework for resolving factual disputes where an original party to an oral agreement is deceased and testimony is contradictory.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Shepard Et Ux. v. Purvine (1952)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"