Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/II-The-Creation-Of-Easements-Sec-361-Express-grant.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 00:20:34+00:00

Document:
Have a right of way over his, A's land, may be regarded as in effect a grant of a right of way by A, in favor of B.
(3) Implied grant or reservation; (4) Prescription; (5) A statutory proceeding, usually under the power of eminent domain; (6) Estoppel. The first of these will be considered in this section, and the others in the sections following.
Mees. & W. 842; Somerset v. Fog-well, 5 Barn. & C. 875; Bird v. Higgmson, 2 Adol. & E. 696, 6 Adol. & E. 824; Hewlins v. Ship-pam, 5 Barn. & C. 221; Shipley v. Fink, 102 Md. 219, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1002, 62 Atl. 360; Dyer v. Sanford, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 395, 43 Am. Dec. 399; Morse v. Copeland, 2 Gray (Mass.) 302; Fuhr v. Dean, 26 Mo. 116, 69 Am. Dee. 484; Blaisdell v. Portsmouth, G. F. & C. R. Co., 51 N. H. 483; Veghte v. Raritan Water Power Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 142; Thompson v. Gregory, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) Si. 1 Am. Dec. 255; Wilkins v. Irvine, 33 Ohio St. 138; Huff v. Mccauley, 53 Pa. St. 206, 91 Am. Dec. 203.
Even apart from the common-law requirement that the grant of an easement shall be by writing under seal, a writing is necessary, under the Statute of Frauds, and an attempted oral grant of an easement is no more than a license.26 In courts exercising equitable powers, however, as before stated,27 if the intended grantee makes expenditures on the faith of the attempted oral grant, the intending1 grantor is estopped to deny the validity of the grant, or as it might be otherwise expressed, the attempted oral grant is given effect on the theory of part performance.
25a. Frogley v. Lovelace, Johns 333; Jones v. Tankerville (1909) 2 Ch. 440; Ashelford v. Wills, 194 111. 492, 62 N. E. 817.
215, 75 Pac. 369; Rice v. Roberts, 24 Wis. 461, 1 Am. Rep. 195.
27. Ante, Sec. 349(d), notes 44-49.
28. Hiolms v. Seller, 3 Lev. 305; Rowbotham v. Wilson, 8 H. L. Cas. 348, 362; Mccarthy v. Nic-rcsi, 72 Ala. 332, 47 Am. Rep. 418; Willoughby v. Lawrence, 116 111. 11, 56 Am. Rep. 758. 4 X. E. 356; Harris v. Dozier, 72 111. App. 542; Hogan v. Barry, 143 Mass. 538, 10 N. E. 253; Ladd v. City of Boston, 151 Mass. 585, 21 Am. St. Rep. 481, 24 X. E. 858; Kettle River R. Co. v. Eastern Ry. Co., 41 Minn. 472, 6 L. R. A. Ill, 43 N. W. 469; Barr v Lamaster. 48 Neb. 114. 32 L. R. A. 451, 66 N. W. 1110; First Nat. Bank v. Portsmouth Sav. Bank, 71 N. H. 547, 53 Atl. 1017; Wetmore v. Bruce, 118 N. Y. 319, 23 N. E. 303: Nor-fleet v. Cromwell, 64 N. C. 1; Morton v. Thompson. 69 Vt. 432.
38 Atl. 88; Kalinowski v. Jacob-owoski, 52 Wash. 359, 100 Pac. 852; Warren v. Syme, 7 W. Va. 475; In re Barhausen, 142 Wis. 292, 124 N. W. 649, 125 N. W. 680.
Likewise what is in form a release may, under the particular circumstances of the case, be construed as the grant of an easement. Walterman v. Norwalk, 145 Wis. 663, 130 N. W. 479.
28a. Patterson v. Chambers Power Co., 81 Ore. 328, 159 Pac. 568, and cases there cited. And see post, Sec. 369.
29. See articles in 24 Law Quart. Rev. at pp. 199, 259, 264.
30. There is a dictum to the effect that such words are necessary in Hewlins v. Shippam, 5 B. & C. 221, 228. They are in practice invariably inserted.
31. Bean v. French, 140 Mass.
229, 3 N. E. 206; Hogan v. Barry, 143 Mass. 538, 10 N. E. 253. And see cases cited Post, Sec. 362, note 65.
But even in a state in which such words are regarded as necessary in the case of the grant of an easement, they are not necessary in order to give an easement by partition decree. Bornstein v. Doherty, 204 Mass. 280, 90 N. E. 531.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.