The most important contracts required by the statute of frauds to be in writing are those for the sale or transfer of land or any interest in or concerning them.

These provisions of the statute are very broad and include not only such transactions as pass the fee, but also those affecting a smaller interest. In the statutes of many of the states, as well as in the original statute, all interests for less than a certain term (generally one or three years) are excepted from the operation of the statute.32

The statutes of many of the states also except transfers under order of a court, such as by sheriffs' or masters' sales.33

The statute of frauds has no application to the dedication of land to the public to be used as a street, or for any other purpose.34 In Mann vs. Bergman,35 the Court held:

"There is no controversy as to the facts in this case, and the only question presented for decision is whether or not the appellant is estopped, by reason of his having exhibited a plat to the appellee at the time of the purchase of said premises, upon which was designated said street of Meadow Lane, and by reason of the representation made by him to appellee that said plat would be filed for record, and said street established upon the west side, and contiguous to the property of appellee, from replatting said premises in such manner as to deprive the property of appellee of the advantage of said street. We are of opinion he is. At the time appellee purchased said premises it was agreed that until the plat was filed for record the appellant should pay the taxes upon the entire tract, and appellee should pay his proportion thereof to appellant, and the appellant gave to appellee a receipt for his share of 1899, which designated the property as lot 16 in block 3 in Mann's addition to Rogers Park; the description of the premises purchased by appellee, according to the plat, which was a recognition by the appellant of said plat. Otis vs. People, 196 I11., 542, 63 N. E., 1053. The law is well settled that where the owner of land subdivides the same, and sells lots with reference to a plat which shows the streets and alleys of such subdivision, he is estopped to deny the existence of said streets and alleys, and a purchaser of lots in said subdivision is entitled to have the subdivision remain open for the use of his property and the use of the public. Earll vs. City of Chicago, 136 I11., 277, 26 N. E. 370; Russell vs. City of Lincoln, 200 I11., 511, 65, N. E. 1088; Thompson vs. Maloney, 199 I11., 276, 65, N. E. 236. In such case an implied dedication arises by operation of law, founded upon the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Elliott on Roads and Streets (2nd Edt), Sec. 123. The premises were vacant at the time they were purchased by appellee, and the deed clearly refers to a plat, as the property is described as being bounded upon the south and east by a 16-foot alley; and it was proper to identify by parol evidence the plat referred to, and to show the purchase was made with reference thereto, not with a view to change the deed, but to show the circumstances under which the property was purchased, and that the conduct of the appellant was such at that time as to estop him from afterwards saying that said street was not dedicated to the use of appellee's property and public. Zearing vs. Raber, 74 I11., 409. The dedication of a street is not within the statute of frauds. It may be evinced by acts and declarations, without any writing. Alden Coal Co. vs. Challis, 200 I11., 65 N. E. 665."

32 See Statutes of particular State.

33 Fulton vs. Moore, 25 Pa. St., 468; Watson vs. Violett, 2 Div., 332; Remington vs. Linthi-eum, 14 Pet., 84.

34 For a treatment of transfer by dedication, see subject of Real Property.

35 203 I11., 406; 67 N. E., 814.

Vol 111. - 5.

The statute of frauds, also, does not apply to the case of land taken under the right of eminent domain.36

Mortgages cannot be created by parol.37 Equity, however, has the power to reform an instrument and declare what appears on its face to be a deed to be in reality a mortgage.38

Trees and those crops of the character known as fructus naturales39 are reality and can only pass by writing. Fructus industriales, or those crops which are raised by yearly labor, are personal property and can pass by parol.40

Buildings annexed to the soil are reality,41 but those not permanently affixed are not.42

When land is conveyed neither the possession, nor the right to the use of the land can be reserved by parol,43 but growing crops may.44

Leases for less than three years are excluded from the scope of the English statute, which period is made one year in the statutes of some of the states.45 The statutes never applies to tenancies at will,46 nor to tenancies from year to year.47 In most states it is held that any oral lease will create a tenancy at will, and that upon entry and payment of the first installment of rent this will become a tenancy from year to year.48

36 Embury vs. Conner, 3 N. Y., 511. 37 Richardson vs. Johnson, 41 Wis.,

100. 38 Taylor vs. Luther, 23 Fed. Cas.

No. 13, 796. 39 See subject of Real Property.

40 Davis vs. McFarlane, 37Cal.,634;

Sherry vs. Picken, 10 Ind., 375.

41 Hogsett vs. Ellis, 17 Mich., 351; Brown vs. Roland, 92 Tex., 54, 453 W., 795.

42 Keyser vs. Sunapee School District, No. 8; 35 N. H., 477.

43 Crouse vs. Frothingham, 97 N. Y , 105.

44 Flynt vs. Conrad, 61 N. C, 190; Blackenstoss vs. Stohler, 33 Pa. St., 251.

Tenants who enter into possession of demised premises under a void lease become tenants from year to year from the time of their entry, and the time of termination of their tenancy is not governed by the designation in the lease of the time in the year when the term shall expire.49

Easements of all kinds are covered by the statute and can only be created by writing.50 The creation of easements, in fact, was required to be in writing even before the passage of the statute of frauds it being a maxim of the common law that "incorporeal hereditaments lie in grant."