Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-07-14

acts hereinbefore related amount to
a license in favor of the plaintiff
which the courts should sustain by
perpetual Injunction. 1t is contend
ed on behalf Of the plaintiff that It
relied upon the action Of the board
OF fire commissioners and in pursu-
ance thereof expended large sums OF
money amounting to upwards Of sl5,-
900 in the prosecution Of its business
and the installation Of it's system
that on account of this it acquired a
license which is irreyocable and can
not be disturbed by any action Of the
city.
It Is beyond question that there
we're negotiations looking to the end
sought by the plaintiff. ln'Falls City
Lumber Company Y. Watkins, % Or.
212. Justice Eakin says: IF there
we're negotiations pending for a way,
between Smith and the lumber COM
pany, and the fume was constructed
before the consummation Of the
agreement, this was not sufficient to
constitute a parol license. When
both parties act with knowledge that
license is sought and the improve
ment is made before the license Is
obtained II will be at the risk of the
party making it, but no license can
be implied therefrOm The irreyo-
cabiliJy Of a parOl license or the ap-
plication of equitable estoppel pro-
ceeds upon the ground Of preventing
fraud and depends upon some con-
duct OF the licensor which, If per-
mitted to deny, will amount to fraud
upon the licensee. This court has
frequently defined an irreyOcable Ii
cense, recognizing three essential
elements, viz: the license must be
upon some consideration paid by the
lcensee or some benefit accruing to
the licensor; there must be an oral
agreement therefor; and improve
ments or expenditure in reliance
thereon"
We will first inquire whether
consideration was paid by plaintiff
or passed between 1t and the city
for the alleged license Leaving out
Of the question the fact that there
Is no record evidence of the accept
ance by the city of the boxes, we
will examine the oral testimony on
that subject. This tends to show
that in negotiations about the sub
ject the chief of the fire department
argued that the boxes, when estab-
lished in the streets, should become
the property Of the city and that Of
fiCers Of the plaintiff company ac-
Ceded to that element of the nego-
tiatiOns. In support of its cOnten-
ton that the city accepted the boxes
as its property, the plaintiff intro
duced in evidence certain pages of
the municipal reports of the city of
Portland for several years, begin
ming with the year 1903, showing
that the superintendent of the fire
alarm telegraph furnished list of
signal boxes which gives auxiliary
fire alarm numbers that are sent in
by the Portland Automatic Fire
Alarm Company and the numbers
and locations of certain boxes The
plaintiff maintains that this proves
that the property in the boxes in
question passed to the city and that
it also shows that the city accepted
the boxes as such confederation.
However, in the same list of signal
boxes are sundry others, said to be
owned by the Portland Consolidated
Railway Company, The George Aims
lie Company, Multnomah County,
The Hotel Portland, The Oregon Wa
ter Power & Railway Company and
Standard Oil Company. Moreover,
the boxes referred to in the report