In some states, courts of equity, in the exercise of their jurisdiction to grant relief in case of fraud, have compelled the execution of a written contract where the party sought to be charged had agreed to execute it, but afterwards fraudulently refused to keep his promise.88 Other courts hold that refusal to execute a fore be taken after the making of the contract. Wright v. Nulton, 219 Pa. 253, 68 Atl. 707; Maloy v. Boyett, 53 Fla. 956, 43 South. 243. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 129; Cent. Dig. § 292.

83 Glass v. Hulbert, 102 Mass. at page 32, 3 Am. Rep. 418; Hibbert v. Aylott's Heirs, 52 Tex. 530; Miller v. Ball, 64 N. Y. at page 292; Dougan v. Blocher, 24 Pa. 28; Moore v. Small, 19 Pa. 461; Galbreath v. Galbreath, 5 Watts (Pa.) 146; Ann Berta Lodge No. 42, I. O. O. F., v. Leverton, 42 Tex. at page 26. But see Andrew v. Babcock, 63 Conn. 109, 26 Atl. 715; Kenne-more v. Kennemore, 26 S. C. 251, 1 S. E. 881. See "Frauds, Statute of," Deo. Dig. (Key-No.) § 129; Cent. Dig. §§ 803-326.

84 Wooldridge v. Hancock, 70 Tex. 18, 6 S. W. 818. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 129; Cent. Dig. §§ 303-326.

85 Henrikson v. Henrikson, 143 Wis. 314, 127 N. W. 962, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 534. And see Freeman v, Freeman, 43 N. Y. 34, 3 Am. Rep. 657 (sustaining gift of land upon evidence of possession and improvements). See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 129; Cent. Dig. §§ 303-326.

86 Henrikson v. Henrikson, 143 Wis. 314, 127 N. W. 962, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.> 534. See "Specific Performance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 39-47; Cent. Dig. §§ 114-132.

87 Dunn v. Moore, 38 N. C. 364; Ridley v. McNairy, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 174; Beaman v. Buck, 9 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 207; Pass v. Brooks, 125 N. C. 129, 84 S. E. 228. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 129; Cent. Dig. §§ 287-326.

88 Equitable Gaslight Co. of Baltimore City v. Manufacturing Co., 63 Mdwritten contract as agreed is not such a fraud as will take the contract out of the statute.89

Part Performance - Recovery Quasi Ex Contractu

Where one of the parties to an oral contract within the statute of frauds pays money or performs services thereunder, of which the other party has received the benefit, the law implies a promise, or rather imposes a duty upon him, to pay for the benefit conferred; and an action may be maintained against him, not upon the contract, but upon the appropriate common counts in assumpsit, the measure of recovery being, not the agreed price, but the value of the benefit conferred.90