P was considering the purchase of a tract of land from a third party, which they proposed to use for several purposes, including the construction thereon of a commercial lake. This land was bounded by the lands of others, including on one side, the lands of D. P approached D and told him of the situation, with the alleged result that D orally agreed to allow P to cross his land and to build a road thereon for that purpose, connecting with a circular drive partly built and being built D. There was a statement by P in the conversation that D could fish in the lake when it was built. P asked D 'to put the agreement in writing,' but D declined to do so, saying that his 'word was his bond.' P bought the tract of land, employed an engineer to lay out their access road on D's property, and also spent some of their own money and contributed 'most of the culverts' in constructing a part of D's own circular drive on the D property. P alleged this to have been the consideration for the parole grant of the claimed irrevocable license. The connecting access road was constructed on D's land and P used it for a time. P continued to use the road until, for reasons D requested P to reduce the agreement to writing. The agreements were prepared but have remained unexecuted. D then revoked the license he granted to P. P sued D seeking a declaration that he had an irrevocable license. The court temporarily enjoined D and then allowed D to appeal.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.