29Clerk v. Wright, 1 Atkins. 12 (giving instructions for drawing conveyances); Phillips v. Edwards, 33 Beav. 440 (preparation of deed); Nibert v. Baghuret, 47 N. J. Eq. 201, 205, 20 Atl. 252. In Gould v. Mansfield, 103 Mass. 408, 4 Am. Rep. 573, and In re Edwall's Estate, 75 Wash. 391, 134 Pac. 1041, the simultaneous execution of mutual wills under agreement that they should be irrevocable, was held insufficient to render the agreement enforceable. See also Grind-ling v. Rehyl, 149 Mich. 641,113 N. W. 290, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 466. So in Welch v. Bigger, 24 Ida. 169, 133 Pac. 381, an oral contract for the exchange of land was held not validated by one of the parties paying a mortgage on his own property and obtaining an abstract of title in order to put himself in position to perform.

30 Woolley v. Stewart, 222 N. Y. 347, US N. E. 847, 848. See also Biss v. Hygate, [1918] 2 K. B. 315; Kane p. Hudson, 273 111. 350, 112 N. E. 683; Sarkisian v. Teele, 201 Mass. 596, 608, 88 N. E. 333. Therefore a conveyance of a piece of land in consideration of a cash payment and a conveyance of two lots, was thought not to justify the enforcement of an oral agreement, which formed part of the contract, to buy back the two lots. McEvoy v. Brooks (N. J. Eq.), 103 Ail. 403.

31 Coles v. Pilkington, L. R. 19 Eq. 174 (see also Biss v. Hygate, [19181 said, that acts of part performance are ineffectual unless made in pursuance of the contract and referable to it, the continuance of a possession which existed prior to the agreement is insufficient.32 In a minority of the jurisdictions of the United States,

2 K. B. 315, and cf. Ramsden v. Dyson, L. R. 1 H. L. 129, 170); Nelson v. Shelby Co., 96 Ala. 615, 622, 11 So. 696, 38 Am. St. Rep. 116 (changed by statute so as to require now, payment of at least some part of the price as well as transfer of possession); Cooper v. Newton, 68 Ark. 160, 157, 56 S. W. 867 (see also Phillips v. Grubba, 112 Ark. 562, 167 S. W. 101, where there were also part payment and improvements); Calanchini v. Braustetter, 84 Cal. 249, 253, 24 Pac. 149 (see also McGinn v. Willey, 24 Cal. App. 303,141 Pac. 49, where there were also payment and improvements); Von Troths v. Bamberger, 15 Col. I, 24 Pac. 883; Van Epps v. Redfield, 69 Conn. 104, 36 Atl. 1011 (see also Verzer d. Convard, 75 Conn. 1, 6, 52 Atl. 255); Pleasanton v. Raughley, 3 Del. Ch. 124; Alderman v. Chester, 34 Ga. 152; Tibbs v. Barker, 1 Blackf. 58; Puterbaugh v. Puterbaugh, 131 Ind. 288, 30 N. E. 519, 15 L. R. A. 341 (see also Bastion v. Crawford, 180 Ind. 697, 103 N. E. 792); Anderson v. Simpson, 21 Iowa, 399 [see also Halli-gan v. Frey, 161 Ia. 186, 141 N. W. 944, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 112]; Baldwin v. Baldwin, 73 Kans. 39, 84 Pac. 568, 4 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 957 (see also Taylor v. Taylor, 79 Kans. 161, 99 Pac. 814; Green v. Jones, 76 Me. 563, 566; Morris v. Harris, 9 Gill, 19; Bresnahan v. Bresnahan, 71 Mian. 1, 73 N. W. 515; Emmel v. Hayes, 102 Mo. 186, 14 S. W. 209, 11 L. R. A. 323, 22 Am. St. Rep. 769; Southmayd v. Southmayd, 4 Mont. 100, 6 Pac 318; Brown v. Drew, 67 N. H. 569, 42 Atl. 177; Wharton v. Stoutenburgh, 35 N. J. Eq. 266; Kelley v. Stanberry, 13 Ohio, 408; Smith v. Smith, 1 Rich. Eq. 130; Parrill v. McEinley, 9 Gratt. 1, 58

Am. Dec. 212; Woods v. Stevenson, 43 W. Va. 149, 27 3. E. 309; Brown v. Western Md. Ry. Co. (W. Va.), 99 S. E. 467; Cutler v. Baboock, 81 Wis. 195, 201, 51 N. W. 420, 29 Am. St Rep. 882. See also Read Drug Ac. Co. v. Naltaus, 129 Md. 67, 98 Atl. 168; Putnam v. Tinkler, 83 Mich. 628, 47 N. W. 687; Atkinson v. Akin, 197 Mich. 289, 163 N. W. 1024; Rosenber-ger v. Jones, 118 Mo. 559, 565, 24 S. W. 203; Ross v. Alyea (Mo.), 197 S. W. 26S; Stilling v. Stilling, 67 N. H. 5S4, 42 Atl. 271; Bowman v. Wolford, 80 Va. 213; Prede v. Pfugradt, 85 Wis. 119, 56 N. W. 159.

32 Smith v. Turner, cited in Seogood v. Meale, Prec. in Ch. 661; Brennan v. Bolton, 2 Dr. ft War. 349; Dude v. Ford, 138 V. S. 587, 594, 34 L. Ed. 1091, 11 S. Ct. 417; Window v. Baltimore Ac. R. Co., 188 U. S. 646, 23 S. Ct. 443, 47 L. Ed. 635; Harmon v. Harman, 70 Fed. 894, 935, 17 C. C. A. 479; Danforth v. Laney, 28 Ala. 274; Andrew v. Baboock, 63 Conn. 109,121, 26 Atl. 715; Koch v. Nat. Ass'n, 137 111. 497, 27 N. E. 530; Johnston v.. Glancey, 4 Blackf. 94, 28 Am. Deo. 45; Green v. Groves, 109 Ind. 519, 10 N. E. 401; Swales v. Jackson, 126 Ind. 282, 26 N. E. 62; King v. Hartley (Ind. App.), 123 N. E. 728; Recknagle v. Schmolts, 72 Ia. 63, 33 N. W. 365; Allen v, Bemis, 120 Ia. 172, 94 N. W. 660; Hartshorn v. Smart, 67 Kans. 643, 73 Poo. 73; Rosenthal v. Freebur-ger, 26 Md. 75; Messmore v. Cunningham, 78 Mich. 623, 44 N. W. 145; Emmel v. Hayes, 102 Mo. 186, 14 S. W. 209, 11 L. R. A. 323, 22 Am. St. 769; Starks v. Garver Lumber Mfg. Co., 182 Mo. App. 241,167 S. W. 1198; Peters v. Dickinson, 67 N. H. 389, 32 Atl. 154; Cooky v. Lobdell, 153 N. Y.

596, 47 N. E. 783; Railroad Co. v. West, 57 Ohio St. 161, 168, 49 N. E. 344; Roberta v. Templeton, 48 Greg. 65, 3 L. R. A. (N.S.) 790, 80 Pac 481; Le Vee v. Le Vee, (Oreg. 1919), 181 Pac. 351; Ackerman v. Fisher, 57 Pa. 457; Poag v. Sandifer, 5 Rich. Eq. 170; Anthony v. Leftwich's Representatives, 3 Rand. 238. Cf. Eason' v. Roe, 185 Ala. 71, 64 So. 55; Segera v. Williams, 147 Ga. 219, 93 S. E. 215; Morrison v. Herrick, 130 111. 631, 22 N. E. 537. But in Biss v. Hygate, [1918] 2 K. B. 315, where a tenant under an oral lease went into possession before the time fixed for the beginning of the agreed term, his continuance in possession after that time was held to justify specific enforcement of the agreement. Possession which has already been abandoned has also been thought inadequate. White v. Watkins, 23 Mo. 423, 428. In Purcell v. Minor, 4 Wall, 513, 518, 18 L. Ed. 435, Grier, J., said that the requirement of delivery of possession "will not be satisfied by proof of a scrambling and litigious possession." These words were quoted with approval in Ducie v. Ford, 138 U. S. 587, 594, 34 L. Ed. 1091, 11 S. Ct. 417.

33 Nelson v. Shelby County, 96 Ala. 515, 11 So. 695, 38 Am. St. Rep. 116 (statutory); Storthz v. Watts, 125 Ark.

393,188 S. W. 1166; Gorham v. Dodge, 122 111. 528. 14 N. E. 44; Wright p. Raftree, 181 111. 454,473, 54 N. E. 998; Koenig p. Dohm, 209 111. 468, 479, 70 N. E. 1061; Corbly v. Corbly, 280 111. 278, 117 N. E. 393; Weir p. Weir, 287 111. 495, 122 N. E. 868 (cf. Aldrich v. Aldrich, 287 El. 213, 122 N. E. 472); Kinyon v. Young, 44 Mich. 339, 6 N. W. 835; Atkinson p. Akin, 197 Mich. 289,163 N. W. 1024; Chapel p. Chapel, 132 Minn. 86, 155 N. W. 1054 (see also Lindell v. Iindell, 135 Minn. 368, 160 N. W. 1031); Sanberg v. Clausen, 134 Minn. 321, 159 N. W. 752; Haines v. Spanogle, 17 Neb. 637,24 N. W. 211; Lipp v. Hunt, 25 Neb. 91, 41 N. W. 143; Miller v. Ball, 64 N. Y. 286; Dunckel v. Dunckel, 141 N. Y. 427, 36 N. E. 405; Gibbs p. Horton Co., 61 N. Y. App. Div. 621, 71 N. Y. S. 193; Wallace v. Scoggros, 17 Oreg. 476, 21 Pac. 558, 17 Am. St. Rep. 749; Peckham v. Barker, 8 R. I. 17; Griffith p. Abbott, 56 Vt. 356; Holmes v. Caden, 57 Vt. 111; Gove p. Gove's Adm., 88 Vt. 115, 92 Atl. 10. See also Adams v. White, 40 Okla. 535, 139 Pac. 514; Bendon p. Parfit, 74 Wash. 645, 134 Pac. 185. 34 Burns v. Daggett, 141 Mass. 368, 6 N. E. 727, following Glass p. Hulbert, 102 Mass. 24, 3 Am. Rep. 418; Potter v. Jacobs, 111 Mass. 32. See also to the same effect - Low v. Low, 173 Mass.

680, 54 N. E. 257; Perkins v. Perkins, 181 Mass. 401, 63 N. E. 926; Traveler Shoe Co. v. Koch, 216 Mass. 412, 103 N. E. 931.

35 Purcell v. Miner, 4 Wall. S13, 18 L. Ed. 455 (cf. Townsend v. Vender-worker, 160 U. 8. 171, 183, 40 L. Ed. 383, 16 S. Ct, 268); Sample v. Hor-lacher, 177 Pa. 247, 35 Atl. 615; Derr v. Ackennan, 182 Pa. 591, 38 Atl. 475; Morris c. Gaines, 82 Tex. 255, 17 S. W. 538; Weatherford, etc., Ry. Co. v. Wood, 88 Tex. 191, 194, 30 S. W. 859, 28 L. R. A. 526. In Sears v. Reddick, 211 Fed. 856, 128 C. C. A. 234 (Kans.), the court said (citing Kansas decisions) that irreparable injury was the test, not possession or improvements.

36Pyke v. Williams, 2 Vera. 455; Ducie v. Ford, 138 U. S. 587, 504, 34 L. Ed. 1091, 11 S. Ct. 417; Hodges v.

Rowing, 58 Conn. 12, 18 Atl. 979, 7 L. R. A. 87; Andrew v. Babcock, 63 Conn. 109, 26 Atl. 715; Witt p. Booth, 98 Kans. 554, 153 Pac. 851; Wharton v. Stoutenburgh, 35 N. J. Eq. 266; Harris v. Knicker backer, 5 Wend. 638; Reed v. Reed, 12 Pa. 117; Johnson v. Puget Mill Co., 28 Wash. 515, 68 Pac. 867; Steenrod's Adm. v. W. P. & B. R. Co., 27 W. Va. 1.

37 Caton v. Caton, L. R. 1 Ch. 137, and this passage was referred to without comment by Kay, J., in McManus v. Cooke, 35 Ch. D. 681.

38 Dickinson v. Barron, [1904] 2 Ch. 339, Kekewich, J.

39Quirk v. Bank of Commerce, 244 Fed. 682, 687, 157 C. C. A. 130 (Tennessee law); Usher v. Flood, 83 Ky. 562; Bullitt v. Eastern Kentucky Land Co., 93 Ky. 324, 36 S. W. 16; Coffey v.

The doctrine is exclusively enforced by courts of equity powers.40