## Facts

- Baseball Publishing Company entered a written agreement with the then-owner or occupier of a building abutting a public way to place and maintain an advertising sign on a specified part of the structure.
- The agreement granted a narrow, location-specific right for a stated term in exchange for payment; it did not purport to transfer general possession of any portion of the premises.
- Bruton later acquired the relevant ownership or possessory interest in the property.
- After the ownership change, Bruton interfered with the continued maintenance of the sign, including removal or attempted removal.
- The publisher claimed the agreement created a property interest that bound successors and sought equitable relief to prevent interference.
- Bruton contended the agreement created only a personal, revocable license that did not bind a later owner.

## Issues

1. Whether a written, exclusive, fixed-term right to maintain an advertising sign on another’s building creates only a revocable license or a property interest in land.
2. Whether the agreement constituted a lease of part of the premises requiring transfer of exclusive possession.
3. If not a lease, whether the right is properly treated as an easement or servitude in gross enforceable against a successor owner with notice.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts concluded the agreement did not create a lease because it did not grant general exclusive possession of any part of the premises.
- The court held the agreement created an enforceable interest in land in the nature of an easement (servitude) in gross to maintain the sign in the designated location for the term stated.
- The right was not a mere revocable license and was enforceable in equity against a subsequent owner who took the property subject to the right, including where the successor had notice.

## Legal Principles

- A license is a personal permission that is typically revocable and does not create an interest in land.
- A lease requires a transfer of exclusive possession of the demised premises (or a defined part) for a term; a narrowly defined right to use a wall area for a sign does not necessarily satisfy this requirement.
- An easement is a nonpossessory interest authorizing a specific use of another’s land; an expressly granted, definite, fixed-term right to maintain a structure on a defined location may be classified as an easement rather than a license.
- Commercial easements in gross may be valid when created by clear written agreement and defined with sufficient certainty as to location and scope.
- A servitude-type interest, unlike a personal license, may bind successors who take with notice and may be protected by injunctive relief.

## Conclusion

The court treated a definite, fixed-term, paid-for right to maintain an advertising sign at a particular location on a building as an easement in gross rather than a revocable license, allowing enforcement against a successor owner with notice despite the arrangement not constituting a lease.


Baseball Publ'g Co. v. Bruton, 302 Mass. 54 (1938)