## Facts

- Jacob Stoner owned land across which neighboring landowners, Fred Zucker and others, sought to run an irrigation ditch carrying water from the Santa Ana River.
- In 1899, Stoner gave defendants oral permission to enter his land and construct the ditch; no written easement or right-of-way was conveyed.
- Defendants constructed the ditch as a permanent watercourse and spent more than $7,000 on its construction.
- In 1900, Stoner gave notice purporting to revoke the permission and demanded defendants stop entering the land and using the ditch.
- Defendants continued entering to repair and maintain the ditch and indicated they would continue doing so.
- Stoner sued in equity to have defendants declared trespassers and to enjoin further use and entry.
- The trial court entered judgment for defendants, finding they had a “right of way,” but the reviewing court treated the arrangement as an oral license, not a written grant.

## Issues

1. Whether an executed oral license to construct and maintain an irrigation ditch, relied upon through substantial expenditures for a continuing use, is revocable at the landowner’s will.
2. Whether the licensee’s continued entry after purported revocation constitutes trespass warranting injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California affirmed judgment for defendants.
- The court held that when an oral license is executed through substantial expenditure of money and labor, and the permission contemplates a permanent or long-continued use, the license becomes irrevocable for so long as the contemplated use continues.
- The executed license was treated in legal effect as an easement permitting continued use and limited entry to maintain the ditch.
- Stoner’s attempted revocation was ineffective; defendants’ repair and maintenance entries were not trespasses, and an injunction was not available on that theory.

## Legal Principles

- A license is generally a revocable permission and ordinarily creates no interest in land.
- An executed oral license may become irrevocable when the licensee, in reliance on the permission, incurs substantial expenditures of money or labor to place enduring improvements on the land.
- Where the nature of the permission contemplates continuing use (such as a permanent ditch), equity may treat the executed license as an easement for the duration of the contemplated use, including a right of entry reasonably necessary for maintenance.
- Reliance-based equitable protection may prevent the licensor from invoking revocability or the Statute of Frauds to treat the licensee as a trespasser after inducing substantial, foreseeable expenditures.

## Conclusion

The court held that Stoner could not revoke an oral permission after defendants constructed an expensive, permanent irrigation ditch in reliance on it; the executed license became irrevocable and functioned as an easement, defeating Stoner’s trespass and injunction claims.


Stoner v. Zucker, 148 Cal. 516, 83 P. 808 (Cal. 1906)