The authority of an agent to enter into a contract for the sale or purchase of land though given orally will enable him to bind his principal by contract with a third person,36 except where statutes expressly require such authority to be in writing.37 The agent's authority indeed is in no proper sense a

32 Hurley v. Donovan, 182 Mass. 64, 64 N. E. 685; Weaver v. Aitcheson, 66 Mich. 285, 32 N. W. 436; Poppe v. Poppe, 114 Mich. 649, 72 N. W. 612, 68 Am. St. Rep. 503; Campbell v. Bright, 87 Miss. 443, 40 So. 3; McKen v. Vail, 79 N. C. 194.

33 Rozell ei. Vamyckle, 11 Wash. 79, 39 Pac. 270.

34Cocking o. Ward, 1 C. B. 858; Reynolds v. Dunkirk etc. R. Co., 17 Barb. 613; Simms v. Killian, 12 Ired. 252; Coleman v. Chester, 14 3. C. 286. See also cases cited infra, 494, □. 36. But under the construction given to the words "party to be charged" in some States or by the express words of local statutes, this is not true in all of the United States, See infra, Sec. 586.

35 See infra, Sec.493, ad fin.

36 Heard v. Filler, 4 Ch. App. 548; Union Bag A Paper Corp. v. Bischoff, 255 Fed. 187; Rutenberg v. Main, 47 Cal. 213; Harper v. Goldschnudt, 156 Cal. 245, 104 Pac, 451, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 689, 134 Am. St Rep. 124; Rottman v. Waason, 5 Kan. 662; Rose v. Hayden, 35 Kans. 106, 10 Pac. 554; Talbot v. Bowen, 1 A. K. Marsh. 436, 10 Am. Dec. 747; Brown v. Eaton, 21 Minn. 409 (changed by statute, Cour-solle v. Weyerhauser, 69 Minn. 328, 332, 72 N. W. 897); Curtis v. Blair, 26 Miss. 309, 59 Am. Dec. 257; Lob-dell v. Mason, 71 Miss. 937, 15-So. 44; Hopper v. McAllum, 87 Miss. 441, 40 So. 2; Riley v. Minor, 29 Mo. 439; Cobban v, Hecklen, 27 Mont. 245, 70 Pac. 806 (changed by statute); Tyrrell v. O'Connor, 56 N. J. Eq. 448, 41 Atl. 674; Worrell v. Munn, 5 N. Y. 229, 56 Am. Dec. 330; Newton v. Bronson, 13 N. Y. 586, 67 Am. Dec 89; Blass v. Terry, 156 N. Y. 122, 136, 50 N. E. 953; Sholovits v. Noorigian (R. I.), 107 Atl. 94; Dodge v. Hopkins, 14 Wis. 630; Tufts v. Brace, 103 Wis. 341, 344, 79 N. W. 414; Brown c. Griswold, 109 Wis. 275, 279, 85 N. W. 363.

37Mechem, Agency (2d ed.), Sec.229, enumerates the following States as having enacted statutes requiring authority to contract for the sale of the principal's land to be written: Alacontract;38 but the contract express or implied between the agent and principal as to the terms on which the authority should be exercised may also be enforced by one of them against the other, although the agency related to land, and the contract was not in writing; 39 unless the obligation of which enforcement is sought is to transfer an interest in land, in which case the obligation is unenforceable. Thus, if the agreed compensation of the agent was an interest in the land to which the agency related, he cannot recover it.40

So "Where a man merely employs another person by parol as an agent to buy an estate, who buys it for himself and denies the trust, and no part of the purchase money is paid by the principal, and there is no written agreement, he cannot compel the agent to convey the estate to him, as that would be directly in the teeth of the Statute of Frauds," [either of the section invalidating oral trusts or that invalidating oral contracts to sell land].41

An oral agreement of partnership is valid though the intention of the partners is to own or deal in real estate,42 since the bams, California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, West Virginia. See also supra, Sec. 276.

38 See supra, 5 274.

39Jackson v. Higgins, 70 N. H. 637, 49 AH. 574; Abbott v. Hunt, 129 N. C. 403, 40 S. E. 119.

40 Dunphy v. Ryan, 116 U. 8. 491, 29 L. Ed. 703, 6 S. Ct. 486; Robbies v. Kimball, 55 Ark. 414, 416, 18 S. W. 457, 29 Am. St. Rep. 45; McDonald v. Malta, 78 Mich. 685, 44 N. W. 337; Russell v, Briggs, 165 N. Y. 500, 59 N. E. 303, 53 L. R. A. 556; Harrison p. Bailey, 14 S. Car. 334.

412 Sugd. Vendors (14th ed.), 703. See also - James v. Smith, [1891) 1 Ch. 384; Collins v. Sullivan, 135 Mass. 461; Alien v. Richard, 83 Mo. 55; Levy v. Brush, 45 N. Y. 589; Wataon v. Erb, 33 Ohio St. 35; Nixon's Appeal, 63 Pa. 279. Some decisions hold, however, that the obligation of the agent to convey is imposed by law and is not within the statute. See Boswell v. Cunningham, 32 Fla. 277, 13 So. 354, 21 L. R. A. 54; Rose v. Harden, 35 Kans. 106, 10 Pac. 554, 57 Am. Rep. 145, and cases therein cited.

42Dale v. Hamilton, 5 Hare, 360; Re De Nicola, [1900] 2 Ch. 410; Me-FJroy v. Swope, 47 Fed. 380, 380; Bates 9. Babcock, 95 Cal 479, 30 Pac. 605, 16 L. R. A. 745, 29 Am. St. Rep. 133; Brown v. Spencer, 163 Cal. 589, 126 Pac. 493; VonTrotha v. Bamberger, 15 Col. 1, 24 Pac. 883; Lane v. Lodge, 139 Ga. 93, 76 8. E. 874; Morrill v. Colehour, 82 III. 618; Fitch v. King, 279 111. 62, 116 N. E. 624; Smith v. Hart, 179 111. App. 98; Holmes v. Mo-Cray, 51 Ind. 368, 19 Am. Rep. 735; Lewis v. Harrison, 81 Ind. 278, 286; Richards v. Grinnell, 63 Ia. 44,18 N. W. 668, 50 Am. Rep. 727; Dudley v. Littlefield, 21 Me. 418,423; Trowbridge v. Wetherbee, 11 Allen, 361; Weth-erbee v. Potter, 99 Mass. 354; Lurie v. Pinanski, 215 Mass. 229, 102 N. E.

interest of each partner is only a right to such profits and capital as may be left on an accounting after payment of firm debts, and for the same reason an agreement to sell a partnership interest in a firm is not within the statute, though the firm owns real estate;43 nor an agreement between two parties jointly interested in land the title to which is in one of them, that the land shall be sold, and the proceeds divided.44 On the other hand, an agreement for the purchase of real estate, by one of the contracting parties to be held for the joint benefit of the two, is within the statute,45 since it is a share of the land as such that the promisee is to receive.

629; Carr v. Leavitt, 54 Mich. 540, 20 N. W. 576; Davis v. Qerber, 69 Mich. 246, 37 N. W. 281; Petrie v. Torrent, 88 Mich. 43, 49 N. W. 1076; Snyder v. Wolford, 33 Minn. 175, 22 N. W. 254, 53 Am. Rep. 22; Newell v. Cochran, 41 Minn. 374, 43 N. W. 84; Cheater v. Dickerson, 54 N. Y. 1, 13 Am. Rep. 550; Babcock v. Read, 99 N. Y. 209, 1 N. E. 141; King v. Barnes, 109 N. Y. 267,285, 16 N. E. 332; Flower v. Barne-koff, 20 Oreg. 132, 25 Pac. 370, 11 L. R. A. 149; Meason v. Kaine, 63 Pa, 339; Benjamin v. Zell, 100 Pa. 33; Everhart's App., 106 Pa. 349; Howell p. Kelly, 149 Pa. 473, 24 Atl. 224; Moran v. McDevitt (R. I.), S3 Atl. 1013; Bruce v. Hastings, 41 Vt. 380, 98 Am. Dec. 592; Burgwyn v. Jones, 113 Va. 511,758. E. 188, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 120. But see contra - Smith v. Burn-ham, 3 Sum. 435, 458; Rowland v. Booser, 10 Ala. 690, 695; Gray p. Palmer, 9 Cal. 616,639; Pecot v. Arme-lin, 21 La. Ann. 667; Bird v. Morrison, 12 Wis. 138; McMitlen v. Pratt, 89 Wis. 612, 62 N. W. 588; Smith v. Putnam, 107 Wis. 155,162,82 N. W. 1077; Huntington v. Burdeau, 149 Wis. 263, 135 N. W. 846. Cf. Walters v. Mc-Guigan, 72 Wis. 155, 39 N. W. 382. An agreement that a new partnership shall have an interest in realty owned by one of the partners at the time of the agreement is within the statute.

Burgwyn v. Jones, 113 Va. 511, 75 S. E. 188, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 120; Richtmao v. Watson, 150 Wis. 385, 136 N. W. 797. See further Gilmore, Partnership, 94; 4 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 427.

43 Vincent v. Vieths, 60 Mo. App. 9. Cf. Watson v. Spratley, 10 Ex. 222. See also infra, Sec. 512, in regard to analogous questions under the section of the statute relating to the sale of goods.

44 Brogden v. Gibson, 165 N. C. 16, 80 S. E. 966. See also Trowbridge v. Wetherbee, 11 Allen, 361.

45 McKinley v. Lloyd, 128 Fed. 519; Morton v. Nelson, 145 111. 586, 32 N. E. 916; Wallace v. Stevens, 64 Me. 225; Hollida v. Shoop, 4 Md. 465; Green v. Drummood, 31 Md. 71,1 Am. Rep. 14; Wiley v. Wiley, 115 Md. 646, 81 Atl. ISO; Persons v. Phelan, 134 Mass. 109; Bailey v. Hemenway, 147 Mass. 326, 17 N. E. 645; Brosnan v. McKee, 63 Mich. 454, 30 N. W. 107; Walker v. Herring, 21 Gratt. 678, 8 Am. Rep. 616; Scheuer v. Cochem, 126 Wis. 209, 105 N. W. 573, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 427. See also Miller v. Miller, 156 Ky. 267,160 S. W. 923; McLennan v. Boutell, 117 Mich. 544, 76 N. W, 75. Cf. Evans v. Green, 23 Miss. 294. This is analogous to the case of an agent who is to receive compensation in land. See supra, n. 40.