The provision that "no action shall be brought" on oral contracts within the statute not only prevents suit on such a contract,

285; Baker v. Baker, 2 S. D. 261, 49 N. W. 10G4, 39 Am. St. Rep. 776; McDonald v. Yungbluth (C. C.) 46 Fed. 836. In Iowa the court decreed specific performance of a parol agreement to assign a patent right, though Rev. St. U. S. § 4898 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3387], requires assignments to be in writing. Searle v. Hill, 73 Iowa, 367, 35 N. W. 490, 5 Am. St. Rep. 688. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 39; Cent. Dig. §§ 114-119.

89 Cay lor v. Roe, 99 Ind. 1; Jackson v. Myers, 120 Ind. 504, 22 N. E. 90, and 23 N. E. 86; Feeney v. Howard, 79 Cal. 525, 21 Pac. 984, 4 L. R. A. 826, 12 Am. St Rep. 162; Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Pittsburg v. Diamond Coal & Coke Co., 234 Pa. 100, S3 Atl. 54. And see Glass v. Hulbert, 102 Mass. 30, 3 Am. Rep. 418. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 39; Cent. Dig. §§ 114-119.

90 Dowling v. McKenney, 124 Mass. 478; Henrikson v. Henrikson, 143 Wis. 314, 127 N. W. 962, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 534; Whipple v. Parker, 29 Mich. 369; Whitaker v. Burrows, 71 Hun, 478, 24 N. Y. Supp. 1011; Patten v. Hicks, 43 Cal. 509. And see cases cited post, note 92. As to recovery of money or other consideration paid, see Welch v. Darling, 59 Vt. 136, 7 Atl. 547; Herrick v. Newell, 49 Minn. 198, 51 N. W. 819; Schroeder v. Loeber, 75 Md. 195, 23 Atl. 579, and 24 Atl. 226; Worth v. Patton, 5 Ind. App. 272, 31 N. E. 1130; Nelson v. Improvement Co., 96 Ala. 515, 11 South. 695, 38 Am. St. Rep. 116. Recovery for services rendered. Cadman v. Markle, 76 Mich. 448, 43 N. W. 315, 5 L. R. A. 707; Sprague v. Haines, 68 Tex. 215, 4 S. W. 371; Stevens v. Lee, 70 Tex. 279, 8 S. W. 40; Hartwell v. Young, 67 Hun, 472, 22 N. Y. Supp. 486; Jeffery v. Walker, 72 Hun, 628, 25 N. Y. Supp. 161; Won-settler v. Lee, 40 Kan. 367, 19 Pac. 862; Springer v. Bien (Com. PL) 10 N. Y. Supp. 530; Schoonover v. Vachon, 121 Ind. 3, 22 N. E. 777; Miller v. El-dredge, 126 Ind. 461, 27 N. E. 132; Taggart v. Tevanny, 1 Ind. App. 339, 27 N. E. 511; Koch v. Williams, 82 Wis. 186, 52 N. W. 257; Stout's Adm'r v. Royston, 107 S. W. 784, 32 Ky. Law Rep. 1055; Wilson v. Wilderness Poultry Farm, 82 N. J. Law, 352, 82 Atl. 517. In Minnesota, inconsistently, the agreement fixes the value of the services rendered under it. Kriger v. Lep-pel, 42 Minn. 6, 43 N. W. 484; Spinney v. Hill, 81 Minn. 316, 84 N. W. 116. Recovery of expenses Incurred, or money paid for the use of the other party. Sprague v. Haines, 68 Tex. 215, 4 S. W. 371. Recovery for use and occupancy of land from one who has used it under a parol agreement which he but prevents such a contract from being set up as a defense,91 as for instance, in an action on the quantum meruit. by a party who has partly performed under it,92 or in an action in ejectment against one in possession of land under an oral contract.98

Who May Plead The Statute

The benefits of the statute of frauds are personal, and it can only be set up by the parties to the contract or their privies.94