Baltimore & Hanover Railroad v. Algire

Ritchie, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.. The former case between these parties, reported in 63 Md., 319 , was an action of trespass by the present appellee against the appellant for running its trains across his lands after revoking a parol license giving the right of way.. In that case this Court decided that a parol license was no defence in an action at law after revocation, a deed duly executed and recorded being necessary to convey such an easement. But in its opinion this Court further remarked: “ Whether a Court of equity would restrain the application of this rule in a case where one, by express consent or acquiescence, has induced. another person to incur expense in the construction of permanent works, and afterwards attempts to deprive such person of the bene ³³⁹ fits of liis expenditure by reason of the want of a complete legal title, is a question not presented in this appeal, and in regard to which we are not to be understood as expressing any opinion.” The present case is a suit in equity by the appellant, claiming that, the appellee is equitably estopped by the parol license,alleged to have been given, notwithstanding its revocation, from seeking to recover damages for the use of the said right of way, .over which, at considerable expense, it has erected its railroad, in pursuance of such license.

That equity will grant relief to the extent of requiring a licensor to reimburse the licensee the amount of his expenditures, before regaining possession of his land is intimated in the case of Addison vs. Hack, 2 Gill, 221 , the • same Judge delivering the opinion as in Hays vs. Richardson, 1 G. & J., 366 , where it was decided that a right of way could be conveyed in this State only by deed duly executed and recorded ; and distinctly announced in Carter and Lewis vs. Harlan, et al., 6 Md., 20 . But we do not feel called upon now to discuss this proposition, because we do not think that under the proof in this cause the irrevocable character of the appellee’s parol license has been satisfactorily made out. It is clearly shown that the line along which appellee first gave leave for the road to be constructed, was not the one actually adopted, and there is strong, if not preponderating, testimony to show that the company induced the appellee to forego his objections to the new route by promising him exceptional privileges a,nd advantages in the way of providing facilities for pic-nic