The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-10-25
STATE SUPREME COURT
Decision Of the Cascade County
Court Reversed.
THE WATER WORKS CASE
n Company Has No Right TO Lay Its
pipss Through the Land OF the
Great Northern Railroad-w. II.
Baboock va. r. A Max weu.
Special Dispatch to the Standard.

Helena. Oct. 24.-The supreme court
to-day rendered two opinions and lis
tened to arguments presented by J. w.
Cotter and Charles o'Donnel on the
case of York VS.. Stewart, appealed from
silver Bow county. The court also adj
mitted II. b. Bolinger OF Townsend TO
practice law in this state. OF the cases
decided, the more important was on an
appeal from the district court of Cas-
cade county. the Great Falls Water
Works company VS.. the Great North
ern railroad. an action growing out OF
q dispute between the water company
and the railroad as TO the right OF the
former to lay its water mains under
meath the company's tracks at a point
different from what was specified IN
the deeds. When the water company
was built. permission was obtained
from the townsite company TO lay pipes
across q certain portion OF the latter
land IN order to connect the pumping
station on the river bank at Tenth ave
nue. south with the system. The lines
were laid accordingly. subsequently,
the land became the property or the
Great Northern road. and about three
years q the water company decided
IL would be more advantageous to lay
the mains over a route different from
ira specified In the townsite deed.
basing this upon a verbal agreement
had with the late Colonel Broadwater
at the time he was president OF the
townsite The water company
placed a force Of men at work exca-
waiting under the railroad company's
tracks for the purpose of laying the
pipes over the new route. After the
pipes had been partially laid the rail-
road company took a hand In the pro-
ceedings and ordered a gang OF men TO
-..,r =. a.. ,t..s and an the axCnV1-
lions. This precipitated a small-sized
war. Opposing forces of men glareo
at one another for a day. and then the
water company applied to the district
court for an injunction restraining the
railroad from interfering with It's men.
C.. n. Benton. then district judge.
granted the Injunction on the ground
that the verbal permission obtained by
the water from Colonel
Broadwater prevented the railroad
from interfering with plaintiffs enjoy
ment Of the privilege so secured. The
railroad appealed from this ruling 10
the supreme
In n long and elaborate opinion by
Justice Hunt. the ruling OF the lower
court n reversed. The supreme court
holds. In effect. that a parole license. or
verbal agreement. such as was given IN
this case. IL revocable at any time. m
that n who performs any act on the
promises OF another without a better
foundation than such permission as
wal given by Colonel Broadwater. does
90 at his own peril and cannot call the
courts to his aid II the one giving the
license revokes II. Succinctly stated, the
court holds that one wishing To be Sc
cure in the enjoyment Of an interest IN
another's land such as was sought IN
this case. must possess written eNi-
dence to that effect. The court orders
the water company to remove the pipes
from the railroads company's land un-
less II secures a right OF way by means
OF eminent domain proceedings.
In passing upon the feature OF parole
or verbal license. the court comments
as follows: ,oo,s,or
the serious question OF Broadwaters
authority to represent the townsite
by oral agreement 20 a modi-
NcatIon or a change of a right-of-way
from hat described in the deed. N
ASSUMING he did rave such power. we
vet fail TO find substantial evidence TO
upport any greater claim on respond
ems (water company part than
a right resting simply on
narole license to lay the
main then desired to be laid In a direct
line from the pumping station"
The principle OF the common law was
that a parole license to be exercised up
on the land OF another creates an in
ferest In the lana, IL Witnln inv SNdA'
of frauds and is subject TO revocation
by the licensor at any time. even
though the licensee has exercised acts
under the license or made expenditures
In reliance thereon"
A number of citations bearing upon
ahis point are given and the court con-
tinues: AN extended examination Of
cases bearing upon the doctrine of the
revocabiiity of parole license has Inn
pressed upon us h belief that the
sound. the logical. as well as the safe
reasoning s~ustains the rule that n pa
role license OF the character of the one
under consideration is always re-
vocable at the pleasure of the licensor.
so far as any further enjoyment of the
privilege extended goes Modern writ
ers deducing principles from the more
recent opinions Of the courts. have TAX
en- this view Of the subject. and to give
that security to titles so essentially
important in afording protection
against flaws and burdens not imposed
by writing but resting on verbal per
missions or agreements, IL Is well settled
that the doctrine of estoppel Is inap-
plicable, insomuch as the licensee is
hound 70 know that his license was re-