however, a stricter rule prevails than that hitherto stated. In some of these States payment of all or part of the consideration or improvements on the property must be made as well as possession taken in order to justify specific performance.33 In Massachusetts the doctrine of part performance is limited perhaps as strictly as in any jurisdiction where the doctrine is recognized at all. To justify specific performance it is there held that not only must the premises have been occupied, but that improvements "have been induced by the contract and in reliance upon its performance, and such that adequate compensation could not be made for them by the defendant except by the conveyance of the premises."34 A rule similar to that adopted in Massachusetts is found in the decisions of a few other States, and of the Supreme Court of the United States.35 Almost always it is the buyer who seeks to enforce specifically an oral contract on grounds of part performance, but it is well settled that the seller also may enforce the buyer's obligation, if the circumstances are such that the buyer could maintain a suit had the seller made default.36 Though cases of part performance by the seller will be rare where there has been no transfer of possession, such a situation seems possible. It has been said in England - "If I agree with A by parol, without writing, that I will build a house on my land, and then will sell it to him at a stipulated price, and in pursuance of that agreement I build a house, this may afford me ground for compelling A to complete the purchase," 37 and though in a later case it was questioned whether this statement would be accurate without further facts, it was held that where the seller had built a house for the buyer and the latter during the progress of the building visited the site and suggested material alterations and improvements, which were carried out by the seller, specific performance would be decreed against the buyer.38 In a few States the doctrine that part performance validates an oral contract is wholly denied.39

4 Wall. 613, 18 L. Ed. 435; Duff v. Hopkins, 33 Fed. 599, 607; Mialhi v. Lassabe, 4 Ala. 712; Uaderhill v. Allen, 18 Ark. 466; Fulton v. Jansen, 99 Cal. S87, 34 Pac. 331; Eaton v. Whitaker, 18 Conn. 222, 229; Neal v. Gregory, 19 Fla. 356; Black v. Black, 15 Ga. 445; Koenig v. Dohm, 209 111. 488, 479, 70 N. E. 1061; Johnston v. Glancey, 4 Blackf. 94, 28 Am. Deo. 45; Puter-baugh v. Puterbaugh, 131 Ind. 288, 30 N. E. 519; King v. Hartley (Ind. App.), 123 N. E. 728; Goddard v. Donaha, 42 Kans. 754, 22 Pac. 708; Guthrie v. Anderson, 47 Kans. 383, 28 Pac. 164; Green v. Jones, 76 Me. 563, 507; Hopkins v. Roberts, 54 Md. 321, 316; Washington County v. Carry (Md.), 24 Atl. 151; Thompson v. Gould, 20 Pick. 134; Glass v. Hulbert, 102 Mass. 24, 28, 3 Am. Rep. 418; De Moss v. Robinson, 46 Mich. 62, 8 N. W. 712, 41 Am. Rep. 144; Grinding v. Rehyl, 149 Mich. 641, 113 N. W. 290; Townaend v. Fenton, 32 Minn. 482, 31 N. W. 720; McGuire v. Stevens, 42 Miss. 724, 2 Am. Rep. 649; Parker. Leewright, 20 Mo. 85; Boulder Co. v. Farnham, 12 Mont. 1, 29 Pac. 277; Baker v. Wiswell, 17 Neb. 52, 22 N. W. 111; Peters v. Dickinson, 67 N. H. 389, 32 Atl. 154; Brown p. Drew, 67 N. H. 509, 42 Atl. 177; Nibert v. Baghurst, 47 N. J. Eq. 201,20 Atl. 252; Winchell v. Winchell, 100 N. Y. 159, 103, 2 N. E. 897; Cooley v. Lobdell, 153 N. Y. 590, 601, 47 N. E. 783; Russell v. Briggs, 165 N. Y. 500, 505, 59 N. E. 303, 53 L. R. A. 556; Woolley p. Stewart, 222 N. Y. 347, 118 N. E. 847; Sites d. Keller, 6 Oh. 483; Shahan v. Swan, 48 Ohio St. 25, 40, 29 Am. St. Rep. 517; Weise's App., 72 Pa. 351, 355; Mima v. Chandler, 21 S. Car. 480; Humbert v. Brisbane, 25 S. Car. 506; Bradley v. Owsley, 74 Tex. 69, 72, 11 S. W. 1052; Maxfield v. West, 6 Utah, 327, 23 Pac. 754; Brown v. Pollard, 89 Va. 696, 701, 17 S. E. 6; Miller v. Lor-ents, 39 W. Va. 160,19 S. E. 391; Summers v. Hively, 78 W. Va, 53,88 8. E. 608; Brandetis v. Ncuhtadtl, 13 Wis. 142; Harney v. Burhans, 91 Wis. 348, 04 N. W. 1031. See also Kelly v. Fischer, 263 111. 184,105 N. E. 21; Levy v. Yer-brough, 41 Okla. 16, 136 Pac. 1120. But see conlra - Townsend v. Houston, 1 Harr. 532, 27 Am. Dec. 732; Houston v. Townsend, 1 Del. Ch. 416, 12 Am. Dec. 109; Query v.Listen, 92 Ia. 288, 60 N. W. 524 (statutory); Rohrbach v. Hammill, 162 Ia. 131, 143 N. W. 872 (statutory).

26See infra, Sec. 534.

27 Townsend v. Fenton, 32 Minn. 482, 21 N. W. 728; M'Kee v. Phillips, 9 Watts, 85; Bradley v. Owsley (Tex.), 19 S. W. 340.

28Quirk v. Bank of Commerce, 244 Fed. 682, 687, 157 C. C. A. 130 (Wisconsin law); Edwards v. Estell, 48 Cal. 194; Grant v. Grant, 63 Conn. 530, 29 Atl. 15; Mills v. Joiner, 20 Fla. 479; Cloud v. Greasley, 125 111. 313, 17 N. E. 826; Pond v. Sheean, 132 111. 312, 28 N. E. 1018, 8 L. R, A. 414; Wallace d. Long, 105 Ind. 522, 5 N. E. 666, 55 Am. Rep. 222; Austin v. Davis, 128 Ind. 472, 475, 25 N. E. 890, 12 12 L. R. A. 120, 25 Am. St. Rep. 456; Wright v. Green (Ind.), 119 N. E. 379; Rem v. Drury, 57 Kans. 84, 45 Pac. 71; Grindling v. Rehyl, 149 Mich. 641, 113 N. W. 290; Peters v. Dickinson, 67

N. H. 389, 32 Atl. 164; Weeks v. Lund, 60 N. H. 78, 45 Atl. 249; Russell v. Briggs, 166 N. Y. 600, 69 N. E. 303, 53 L. R. A. 666; Howard v. Brower, 37 Ohio St. 402; Crabill v. Marsh, 38 Ohio St. 331; Mover's App., 105 Pa 432; Ward v. Stuart, 62 Tex, 333; Wright v. Pucket, 22 Gratt. 370; Horn d. Ludington, 32 Wis. 73; Koch v. Williams, 82 Wis. 186, 52 N. W. 257; Keesler's Est., 87 Wis. 660, 59 N. W. 129; Rodman v. Rodman, 112 Wis. 378, 88 N. W. 218. A considerable minority of American decisions, however, hold the receipt of services as consideration especially if of such a character as not readily to be valued in money justification for a decree of specific performance against the vendor. Chas-tain v. Smith, 30 Ga. 96; Gordon v. Spelman, 146 Ga. 682, 89 S. E. 749, Ann. Cas. 1918 A. 852; Warren v. Warren, 105 111. 668; Aldrich v. Al-drich, 287 111. 213, 122 N. E. 472; Ghehak v. Battles, 133 Ia. 107, 110 N. W. 330, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1130, 12 Ann. Cas. 140; Taylor v. Holyfield, (Kans. 1919) 180 Fac. 208; Taft v. Taft, 73 Mich. 602, 41 N. W. 481; Lloyd v. HoIIenback, 98 Mich. 203, 57 N. W. 110 W. Grindling v. Rehyl, 149 Mich. 641, 113 N. W. 290, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 466]; Hall v. Harris, 145 Mo. 614, 47 S. W. 506; Fuchs v. Fuchs, 48 Mo. App, 18; Schutt v. Missionary Society, 41 N. J. Eq. 115, 3 Atl. 398; Pfiugar v. Pulti, 43 N. J. Eq. 440, 11 Atl. 123; Vreeland v. Vree-land, 53 N. J. Eq. 387, 32 Atl. 3; Brinton v. Van Cott, 8 Utah, 480, 33 Pan. 218.