Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130655
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:43:19+00:00

Document:
486 THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT (5) Executed parol license. As above stated, it was the rule that a settler in good faith on the public domain might convey his possessory right by parol license or otherwise. A different question is involved with respect to parol sales of water rights under circumstances of equity, where the transferee entered into possession and made use of the water as well as making investments on the strength of the parol title. The validity of such conveyances was sustained in a considerable number of cases. That is to say, an oral grant, made for a valuable consideration, and carried into execution, may be held to constitute an executed parol grant, an equitable title to use of the water.253 These parol transfers in equity have been enforced not only as between the parties to the transactions, but also with respect to successors in interest of the original parties/ The reasoning of the Texas Supreme Court with respect to a contract for the use of water rights, works, and easements was, first, that it affected real estate to such an extent as to come within the statute of frauds. However, the contract was taken out of the statute by full compliance on the part of the landowner, part performance on the part of the other contractor, and inducement of the landowner to alter his position on the strength of an oral extension of the contract to such an extent that it would be fraud on him to permit the other party to set up its invalidity.255 The basis of the holding of irrevocability of an oral license in many of these cases is, either expressly or impliedly, that under such circumstances and with full consideration of equity the grantor ought to be, and is, estopped to deny his grantee's title. This is exemplified in a fairly recent Oregon decision.256 Even more recently, the Oregon Supreme Court, speaking through Justice O'Connell, advanced a thesis which may be summarized as follows:257 Previous cases accept the theory that the oral grant may be taken out of the statute of frauds by part performance; but they do not always clearly indicate the principle involved. However, if the promisee has acted in reasonable reliance on the promisor's promise, the court will enforce it. A better statement of the doctrine of part performance-better than merely resting on the theory of equitable estoppel-would be that it recognizes that the terms of an oral grant will be enforced (a) if there is enough conduct 253Fogarty v. Fogarty, 129 Cal. 46,47-49, 61 Pac. 570 (1900); Stepp v. Williams, 52Cal. App. 237, 253, 198 Pac. 661 (1921); Campbell v. Shivers, 1 Ariz. 161, 174, 25 Pac. 540 (1874). Oral license accepted, fully executed, and used to advantage by the parties is valid and enforceable: Keim v. Downing, 157 Nebr. 481, 490, 59 N. W. (2d) 602 (1953), "A parol grant of an easement or license like any other contract may rest in implication." 254 Churchill v. Russell, 148 Cal. 1, 4-5, 82 Pac. 440 (1905); Reynolds In. Dist. v. Sproat, 70 Idaho, 217, 221-222, 214 Pac. (2d) 880 (1950). 255 Texas Co. v. Burkett, 117 Tex. 16, 29-30, 296 S. W. 273 (1927). ™Shepardv. Purvine, 196 Oreg. 348, 374, 248 Pac. (2d) 352 (1952). 2S1Luckey v. Deatsman, 217 Oreg. 628, 343 Pac. (2d) 723, 725 (1959).

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