OCR Text |
Show ESTOPPEL 437 made permanent improvements, the owner will be estopped from revoking his license to prevent injustice.946 In a 1959 opinion, the Oregon Supreme Court advanced what it considered a more nearly accurate statement than previously made in the many cases that accepted the theory that an oral agreement may be taken out of the statute of frauds by part performance:947 Although we have said in some of our cases that the doctrine of part performance rests upon the theory of equitable estoppel, it would be more accurate to state the doctrine more broadly and recognize that the terms of an oral agreement will be enforced (1) if there is conduct corroborating and unequivocally referable to the oral agreement sufficient to satisfy the policy of the statute designed to minimize perjured claims and the opportunities for fraud, and (2) if there are equitable grounds for enforcing the contract whether those grounds are found in facts establishing the basis for a true estoppel or in facts justifying the avoidance of unjust enrichment or relief from fraud. These parol transfers have been enforced in equity not only as between the parties to the transactions, but also with respect to successors in interest of the original parties.948 Executed parol licenses to the use of water have also been upheld in favor of the licensees as against claimants by adverse possession.949 Grant of Riparian Right In Chapter 10, under "The Riparian Right-Property Characteristics- Severance of Riparian Right From Land-Grant," there are provisions relating to conveyance and estoppel and to the effect on other riparians. Salient points insofar as the doctrine of estoppel is concerned are summarized here. It is competent for an owner of riparian land to grant the use of the water in whole or in part, leaving the fee of the land vested in the grantor.950 As ^Curtis v. La Grande Water Co., 20 Oreg. 34, 43-44, 23 Pac. 808, 25 Pac. 378 (1890); Lavery v. Arnold, 36 Oreg. 84, 86-87, 57 Pac. 906, 58 Pac. 524 (1899). 9A1Luckey v.Deatsman, 111 Oreg. 628, 343 Pac. (2d) 723, 725 (1959). 948 Churchill v. Russell, 148 Cal. 1, 4-5, 82 Pac. 440 (1905); Fogarty v. Fogarty, 129 Cal. 46, 47-49, 61 Pac. 570 (1900); Stepp v. Williams, 52 Cal. App. 237, 253, 198 Pac. 661 (1921); Irrigated Valleys Land Co. of Cal v. Altman, 57 Cal. App. 413, 426-427, 207 Pac. 401(1922). Additional cases dealing with parol licenses, grants, or agreements are discussed at notes 955-956 infra. 949Ortman v. Dixon, 13 Cal. 33, 36 (1859). Northern Cal. Power Co., Consol. v. Flood, 186 Cal. 301, 305, 199 Pac. 315 (1921). 9S0Alta Land & Water Co. v. Hancock, 85 Cal. 219, 223, 24 Pac. 645 (1890); Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 67 Nebr. 325, 346-347, 349, 93 N.W. 781 (1903); Johnson v. Armour & Co., 69 N. Dak. 769, 776-779, 291 N.W. 113 (1940); Fitzstephens v. Watson, 218 Oreg. 185, 344 Pac. (2d) 221, 229 (1959); Redwater Land & Canal Co. v.Reed, 26 S. |