The same Term in the same Court. Sir William Webb versus Paternoster.
THe case was this; Sir William Plummer licensed Sir William Webb to lay his Hay upon the Land of the said Sir William Plummer untill he could conveniently sell it, and then Sir William Plummer did make a Lease of the Land to Paternoster, who put in his Cattell and they eat up the Hay: And it was two years between the license and the putting in of the Cattell, and yet Sir William Webb brought an action of Trespasse against Paternester for this.
Mountague chief Iustice: 1. This is an Interest which chargeth the Land into whosoever hands it comes, and Webb shall have a reasonable and convenient time to sell his Hay. 2. The Lessee ought to give notice to * 1.1 Sir William Webb of the Lease before he ought to put in his Cattell; to which Haughton Iustice agreed in both points: But Doderidge Iustice said, that Sir William Webb had no certain time by this license, yet he concei∣ved that he ought to have notice: But it was resolved that the Plaintiff had * 1.2 a convenient time (to wit, two years) for the removing of his Hay, and therfore Iudgment was given against him. But admit that there had not been a convenient time, yet the Court was of opinion that the Plaintiff ought to have inclosed the Land at his perill, for the preservation of his Hay: And it was agreed that a license is countermandable, although it be concer∣ning * 1.3 profit or pleasure, unlesse there be a certain time in the license, as if I license one to dig Clay in my Land, this is evocable, and may be counter∣manded although it be in point of profit, which is a stronger case then a license of pleasure, see 13 H. 7. The Dutches of Suffolks case for a license.