Snow

1. The demurrer should have been sustained. The contract set up in that portion of the answer demurred to was verbal contract concerning real property, and invalid as being within the Statute of Frauds. (Civil Code, secs. 1624 and 1741; Code Civil Procedure, sec. 1971.)

If it be claimed that the contract was not for the sale of an interest in the land, but for an easement, we answer that a claim for an easement must be founded upon a grant by deed or writing, or by prescription. ( Wagner v. Hanna, 38 Cal. 111 .)

The answer alleges a contract to convey, and cannot he construed into a parol license to mine. A parol license must be for a temporary, and not to convey an estate in the land. ( Cook v. Stearns, 11 Mass. 536 .)

A contract of the kind set out in the fifth finding would clearly be the grant of an estate in real property without limitation. “ To decide that a right to a permanent occupation of plaintiff’s land may be acquired by parol, and by calling the agreement a license, would be in effect to repeal the statute.” (Mumford v. Whiting, Wend. 380.)

2. The alleged contract, regarded either as an agreement for *627 the sale of the land, the granting of an easement…