72 NATURE OF LICENCE. 



speak of incori^oreal inheritances, yet there is no doubfc but that the 

 principle does not depend on the quality of interest granted or trans- 

 ferred, but on the nature of the subject matter : a right of common, for 

 instance, which is a jn-oflt a prendre, or a right of way, which is an 

 easement, or right in the nature of au easement, can no more be granted 

 or conveyed for life or for years without a deed, than in fee simple." {ih.) 



It would seem from Williams v. Jforris, that there cannot he an 

 irrcrocohJe ticence to enter vpon land, without its amounting to an in- 

 terest in land, and such licence can only be granted by deed. And so 

 it was held by the Court of Exchequer in Wood v. Leadhittcr, that a 

 right to come and remain for a certain time on the land of another 

 can be granted only by deed ; and a parol licence to do so, though 

 money be paid for it, is revocable at any time without paying back the 

 money. 



A licence is a thing so evanescent that it cannot be transferred, and 

 it is determined ly the assignment of the subject matter, in respect of 

 which the privilege is to be enjoyed {Coleman v, Foster). A parol 

 licence from A. to B., to enjoy an easement over the land of A., is 

 countermandable at any time, while it remains executory (Wallis v. 

 Harrison). And if A. conveys the land to another, the licence is de- 

 termined at once, without notice to B. of the transfer, and B. is liable 

 in trespass if he afterwards enters upon the land (ib). And j^er Parke 

 B., ""We are not called upon in this case to consider whether a licence 

 to create or make a railroad, granted by a former owner of the soil, is 

 countermandable after expense has been incurred by the licensee, which 

 was the question in Winter v. Broclcivell ; for it is not alleged that there 

 has been any expense incurred in consequence of the licence, and there- 

 fore it remains executory ; and I take it to be clear that a parol execu- 

 tory licence is countermandable at any time, and if the owner of the 

 land grants to another a licence to go over or do any act upon his close, 

 and then conveys away that close, there is an end to the licence ; for it 

 is an authority only •with respect to the soil of the grantor, and if the 

 close ceases to be his soil, the authority is instantly gone. Webb v. 

 Paternoster is very distinguishable from this case, for there the licence 

 was executed by putting the stack of hay on the land ; the plaintiff 

 there had a sort of interest against the licensor and his assigns, but a 

 licence executory is a simple authority excusing trespassers on the close 

 of the grantor, as long as it is his, and the licence is uncountermanded 

 but ceases the moment the property passes to another." {ih.) 



In Winter v. Broclcwell it was decided, on the authority of Webb v. 

 Paternoster, that a imrol licence to put a skylight over the defendant's 

 area (which impeded the light and air from coming to the plaintiff's 



