Plaintiff, operator of a boat company, owned land adjoining a river. X held land between that of the plaintiff and a county road. Plaintiff, seeking to secure a way from his property to the county road, offered by letter to purchase forty acres from X, and upon refusal, attempted to buy a forty foot strip, which was again refused. There was further correspondence, in which the parties referred to an "easement" or a "right of way," which terminated in a letter from X saying: ''From the standpoint of this company, there will be no objection to you building a road ... ," and directing plaintiff to proceed with construction, and saying that any further arrangements would be made at a later time. Plaintiff spent $1,000 in developing the road and used it for two years. X sold the property to defendant Cooley, who was fully aware of the arrangements with the plaintiff. Shortly thereafter, defendant Slater, plaintiff's competitor, dynamited the road without defendant Cooley's permission. Plaintiff's action was to enjoin further interference with his use of the road. On appeal by Cooley from a lower court judgment for plaintiff, held, affirmed. The court said that it would be a fraud upon the plaintiff to allow the license to be revoked, and called the interest a "permanent license.'' Hunter v. Slater, 331 Mich. 1, 49 N. W. (2d) 33 (1951).
Charles E. Oldfather,
REAL PROPERTY-LICENSES-REVOCABILITY OF PAROL LICENSES WHICH HAVE BEEN ACTED UPON,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol50/iss7/19