By reason of the statute of frauds, all contracts for the sale of real estate are absolutely void unless in writing and signed by the vendor. Generally speaking, no oral contract has any value whatever except that in a certain class of cases an oral contract which has been partially performed may be enforced in a court of equity.1

The statute of frauds provides2 that every contract for leasing for a longer period than one year or for the sale of lands or any interest in lands shall be void unless the contract or some note or memorandum thereof be in writing and signed by the party by whom the lease or the sale is to be made, or by some person thereunto by him lawfully authorized by writing.

The Michigan Supreme Court has construed this statute in many cases 3 and has uniformly held that such contracts are

void unless executed in compliance with the statute, the only exception to the general rule being verbal contracts which have been partly performed by one of the parties to the contract. Where money has been paid under a void contract for the purchase of lands, it may be recovered in an action at law by the vendee.4

1. See Sec. 20, Post. Effect of oral agreement partially performed.

2. Compiled Laws, 1915, Sec. 11977. "Every contract for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of lands, or any interest in lands, shall be void unless the contract, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing and signed by the party by whom the lease or sale is to be made, or by some person thereunto by him lawfully authorized by writing. Compiled Laws, 1915, Sec. 11975. No estate or interest in lands other than leases for a term not exceeding one year, nor any trust or power over or concerning lands or in any manner relating thereto, shall hereafter be created, granted, assigned, surrendered or declared unless by act or operation of law or by a deed or conveyance in writing, subscribed by the party creating, granting, assigning, surrendering or declaring the same, or by some person thereunto by him lawfully authorized by writing."

3. Sutton v. Rowley, 44 Mich. 112. Holding that a verbal agreement to pay for completing certain hydraulic work by conveying a lot was void and unenforceable. Hilde-brand v. Nippeling, 40 Mich. 646. Where a son had a claim against his father and the father verbally promised to him a certain farm but did not do so, upon suit by the son, against the father's estate for the amount of his claim, held that the son could not show the value of the farm as a measure of damages, since a verbal promise to convey land is void. Jesse Scott v. Jonathan T. Bush, 26 Mich. 418. A verbal agreement for the purchase of lands, with a stipulation that money paid down to apply upon the purchase, may be retained if the purchaser fails to complete the bargain, is all a single contract, and void under the statute of frauds, and if possession of the land is not given, and nothing done in part performance, the money so paid may be recovered back, although the vendor is willing, and offers to convey. A parol agreement between A and B that if A will deed certain lands to B's son, B will give A his note for a specified amount, is void, and A, after deeding the land as agreed, cannot maintain an action against B upon such agreement or upon any implied promise.

A complete and binding contract under the statute of frauds may be gathered from letters, writing or telegrams between the parties if so connected with each other that they may be construed together to constitute one transaction, a subject more fully treated elsewhere herein.5

If any promise at all Is implied It is against the grantor himself. Little v. Needham, 39 Mich. 147. A parol contract to procure a conveyance of an equity of redemption held by a third person, is void. Rowden v. Dodge, 40 Mich. 697. And so is a parol agreement for a reservation or exception of part of the realty described in a deed. Detroit, Hillsdale & Ind. R. R. Co. v. Forbes, 30 Mich. 165. Or to surrender or to release a parcel of land mentioned in an executory contract for sale. McEwan v. Ortman, 34 Mich. 325. A parol agreement to accept a deed of land in part payment of a precedent debt is void, and payment of part of the debt in money and the discharge by the debtor of a mortgage on the land, the legal title to which was in a third person, is not such part performance as will take the case out of the statute. Colgrove v. Solomon, 34 Mich. 494. Selecting swamp lands In pursuance of a parol agreement by which the person making the selection was to have an interest therein, Is not such part performance as will take the case out of the statute. Webster v. Gray, 37 Mich. 37; Dwight v. Cutler, 3 Mich.

573; Bomier v. Caldwell, 8 Mich. 463; Wright v. DeGroff, 14 Mich. 164; Holland v. Hoyt, 14 Mich. 242; Climer v. Hovey, 15 Mich. 22; Hog-sett v. Ellis, 17 Mich. 364-5; Abell v. Munson, 18 Mich. 312; Palmer v. Williams, 24 Mich. 331; Scott v. Bush, 26 Mich. 418-29 Mich. 523; Colgrove v. Solomon, 34 Mich. 499-500; Little v. Needham, 39 Mich. 147; Curtis v. Abbie, 39 Mich. 441; Hillebrand v. Nibbelink, 40 Mich. 646; Nims v. Sherman, 43 Mich. 50; Ayers v. Gallup, 44 Mich. 13; Sutton v. Rowley, 44 Mich. 112; Jackson v. Evans, 44 Mich. 510; Demoss v. Robinson, 46 Mich. 62; Kelly v. Kelly, 54 Mich. 30; Dickinson v. Wright, 56 Mich. 46; War-dell v. Williams, 62 Mich. 55; McDonald v. Maltz, 78 Mich. 685; Ducett v. Wolf, 81 Mich. 312; Bart-lett v. Bartlett, 103 Mich. 296; Taylor v. R. D. Scott & Co., 149 Mich. 525.

4. See Sec. 19, Post. Effect of void contract. Adler v. Kalus, 190 Mich. 86; Demoss v. Robinson, 46 Mich. 62.

5. See Sec. 15 Post. The memorandum may consist orally of letters if they are connected by ref-