"Detroit, Mich., March 17, 1888. Received of Waterman's Real Estate Exchange, one hundred dollars, as earnest on purchase of my residence on northeast corner of Second and Bagg streets, lot 75 by 190 ft., for the sum of twenty thousand five hundred dollars ($20,500) cash. Possession given May 15, 1888. $100. James T. Campbell."

Soon after this the plaintiff gave the defendants two notes for $500 each. Later, and before the deal had gone any farther, the plaintiff discovered that there was a prior levy on the premises made under an execution against the defendant. The defendant tendered a deed and the plaintiff refused to accept it because of the levy. Thereafter the defendant secured the discharge of the levy and tendered a deed to the plaintiff but the latter refused to accept it and now brings this action against the defendant and his wife to recover the $1100 he had paid on the purchase price.

The court held that the plaintiff could not recover in this action because he had sued the wife and that if he had discontinued his suit against the wife the decision would have been different. That the defendant's contention in regards to this preliminary agreement that it constituted a binding contract on the plaintiff could not be sustained. That this contract of purchase was not one which the defendants could enforce. It did not name any party to whom the conveyance was to be made as grantee, nor did it fix the time when the payments were to be made. Therefore this agreement or receipt is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds.

Webster v. Brown, 67 Mich. 328. The plaintiff filed a bill for the specific performance of the following alleged contract to convey land:

"Received of Albert Chick, seven ty five dollars, as part payment on a certain piece of land described as follows: West half of southeast quarter of section eight, town nine north, of range thirteen east, being in Sanlac County and State of Michigan.

"The undersigned agrees to make and deliver to the said Albert Chick a bond for a warranty deed on or before the first day of January, 1870. Said bond is to express the several payments that is to be made, and the amount remaining to be paid. Rob't G. Brown. Dated this fourth day of May, A. D. 1869."

The plaintiff holds the above agreement as assignee of Chick and claims that this agreement is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds. The court held that this agreement is not one which can be specifically enforced as it does not satisfy the statute of frauds. At most it is but an agreement to make a land contract; this is not a contract itself. This agreement did not specify the purchase price, and failed to express the time or times of payment.

Wardell v. Williams, 62 Mich. 50. Plaintiff brought suit to recover damages for the breach of an alleged contract which provided for the conveyance of certain real estate from the defendant to the plaintiff.

The agreement upon which this action is based is as follows:

"Detroit, September 6, 1884. Or-rin Wardell, Esq.-Dear Sir:-I will sell you my farm, containing 116 acres more or less, situate on Woodward Avenue, about half mile north of first toll gate, for the sum of $39,000, viz., $12,000 to be paid in cash, and the balance $27,000 to be secured by a mortgage on said farm, payable on or before four years from the date of said mortgage, with interest at the rate of seven per cent. per annum, to be paid semi-annually; you to have the privilege of paying on account of said principal sum, the sum of one thousand dollars or more at any time during said term of four years.

"Said farm having been subdivided into lots, we will agree to the valuation of each lot, and, on payment being made on account of said mortgage, I agree to release lots of equal value to amount paid, the valuation of each lot as agreed between us to be placed on plat. This offer to remain open for 20 days from date. (Signed) John C Williams."

Within the twenty-day period the plaintiff told the defendant that he would accept the offer but he did not pay or tender the $12,000 and he asserts that the defendant stated to him verbally that he would extend the time for payment beyond the twenty days. The question to be determined here was whether there was a valid contract between the parties. The defense was based upon the statute of frauds; the statute providing that contracts for the sale of lands must be in writing and signed by the party by whom the sale is to be made.

The defendant argued that this was not a completed contract.

The court held that this memorandum showed on its face that the minds of the parties had not met and that it was not evidence of a completed agreement, but merely stated terms which if accepted would be the basis of further negotiations between the parties. The valuation of the lots was still to be agreed upon. Where the contract is not complete in itself it is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute. Furthermore, in this particular case the plaintiff is not entitled to relief because he has not tendered the $12,000 within the twenty-day period and the time for performance of this condition could not be extended by parol.

Gault v. Stormont, 51 Mich. 636. The plaintiff was the owner of certain property which he agreed to sell to the defendant for one thousand and fifty dollars; defendant