Lexplug logoLexplug

Stoner v. Zucker

California Supreme Court
148 Cal. 516, 1906 Cal. LEXIS 329, 516 P. 808 (1906)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A parol (oral) license to use land becomes irrevocable when the licensee, in reasonable reliance on the license, expends substantial money or labor in executing the license. Under such circumstances, the license is treated as an easement, continuing for as long as the nature of the use calls for.


Facts:

  • In 1899, a plaintiff landowner gave defendants a parol (oral) license to enter his land.
  • The license was for the defendants to construct and maintain a ditch to carry water for irrigation to their own and other lands.
  • The plaintiff never formally conveyed a written right of way or easement to the defendants.
  • In reliance on the license, the defendants constructed the ditch at an expense of over $7,000.
  • In 1900, the plaintiff served a notice to the defendants, attempting to revoke the license.
  • Despite the revocation notice, the defendants continued to enter the plaintiff's land to repair and maintain the ditch.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiff sued defendants in the trial court, seeking an injunction to prevent them from entering his land and using the ditch.
  • The trial court found in favor of the defendants, holding that they were owners of a right of way for the ditch.
  • The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Supreme Court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a parol license to construct and maintain a ditch on the licensor's land revocable at will after the licensee has entered the land and expended a substantial sum of money in reliance on the license?


Opinions:

Majority - Henshaw, J.

No, a parol license to use land is not revocable at will after the licensee has expended substantial money in reliance upon it. The court adopts the majority rule that when a licensee executes a parol license by expending significant money or labor, the licensor is estopped from revoking the license. To allow revocation in such circumstances would be to countenance a fraud upon the licensee. Citing the leading case of Rerick v. Kern, the court held that the executed license is treated as if it were a formally conveyed easement, with a duration commensurate with the purpose for which it was granted. For an irrigation ditch intended for continuous use, the license becomes in all essentials an easement that continues for as long as the use itself continues.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the doctrine of the irrevocable license in California law, aligning it with the majority of American jurisdictions that apply equitable estoppel to protect a licensee's reliance interests. It carves out a significant exception to the Statute of Frauds, which typically requires interests in land to be in writing. The ruling prevents a licensor from unjustly enriching themselves or causing significant harm to a licensee by revoking permission after the licensee has made substantial investments, thereby transforming a mere revocable permission into a durable property right.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Stoner v. Zucker (1906) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Stoner v. Zucker