## Facts

- Purchasers of landlocked property sought access across neighboring land owned by a married couple.
- The purchasers alleged the neighbor orally agreed they could build and use an access road across his land connecting to a circular drive on the neighbor’s property.
- The purchasers requested a written agreement; the neighbor declined, stating his “word was his bond.”
- Relying on the oral understanding, the purchasers bought the property, hired an engineer to lay out the route, constructed the access road, and supplied substantial materials (including most culverts) used in constructing part of the neighbor’s circular drive.
- The purchasers used the road for a period of time.
- Later, the parties attempted to memorialize their understanding in writing; the neighbor proposed written instruments reflecting his version, but the purchasers rejected them.
- The neighbor then revoked permission and interfered or threatened to interfere with use of the road.
- The purchasers sued in chancery court seeking a decree recognizing an “irrevocable license” (effectively a right-of-way) and an injunction preventing interference.
- The landowners filed a general demurrer asserting the claim was barred by the Statute of Frauds because it sought an interest in land without a writing.
- The chancery court overruled the demurrer and granted an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether an asserted “irrevocable license” to construct and use a roadway across another’s land, based on an oral agreement, is in substance an easement subject to the Statute of Frauds’ writing requirement.
2. Whether expenditures and improvements made in reliance on an oral permission can, in equity, convert a revocable parol license into an irrevocable right of way despite the Statute of Frauds.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Mississippi held the claimed “irrevocable license” was, in substance, an easement and therefore an interest in land requiring a writing under the Statute of Frauds.
- The Court rejected the contention that reliance expenditures made the right irrevocable in Mississippi.
- The Court concluded the bill failed to state a claim for the permanent access right sought.
- The Court ruled the general demurrer should have been sustained, reversing the interlocutory decree that had overruled it, and remanded for proceedings consistent with that ruling.

## Legal Principles

- A right to construct and use a roadway across another’s land is treated as an easement (an interest in land), regardless of being labeled an “irrevocable license.”
- An easement cannot be created by parol agreement; it is within the Statute of Frauds and generally requires a written instrument.
- Mississippi does not recognize a doctrine that reliance expenditures or improvements, standing alone, render a parol license irrevocable or remove a claimed easement from the Statute of Frauds.
- Equitable exceptions based on part performance are applied narrowly and did not apply to enforce a permanent property interest on the pleaded facts.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enforce an oral agreement for a roadway as an “irrevocable license,” holding it was an unenforceable parol easement under the Statute of Frauds and remained revocable despite the purchasers’ expenditures in reliance on the permission.


Reid v. Horne, 187 So. 2d 316 (Miss. 1966)