In some States an anomalous position is given to contracts of partition and to contracts to settle a disputed boundary. It would seem on principle that an oral agreement for partition would be unenforceable, since it necessarily involves an attempted conveyance, or promise to convey; and so it is held in many jurisdictions; 46 but many of the United States hold the oral agreement valid, at least if acted upon, and the requirements generally observed in order to make executory oral contracts binding because of part performance47 are not always considered.48 So an agreement to settle a disputed boundary would seem necessarily to involve an agreement by one party, or both parties, to convey land unless the boundary agreed upon was in fact the actual boundary, which might be subsequently proved by a survey. If, as is sometimes said, the agreement does not aim to convey land, but when acted upon by the parties creates an estoppel, the inquiry is pertinent whether subsequent purchasers without notice from the parties to the agreement will be affected by it. Furthermore there is clearly no misrepresentation by one party relied on by the other. It is better frankly to treat a doctrine as anomalous than to blur the meaning of legal terms. In Massachusetts such an agreement is held within the Statute.49 But almost universally in the United States, it is held valid if there was an honest dispute between the parties as to the location of the boundary.50 If, however, the actual boundary is known, an oral agreement to substitute a new line is invalid.51

46Johnson v. Wilson, Willes, 248; Ireland v. Rittle, 1 Atk. 641; Whaley v. Dawson, 2 Sch. & L. 367; Bach v. Ballard, 13 La. Ann. 487; Duncan v. Sylvester, 16 Me. 388; Chenery v. Dole, 39 Me. 162; John v. Sabnttis, 69 Me. 473; Porter v. Perkins, 5 Mass. 233, 4 Am. Dec. 62; Porter v. Hill, 9 Mass. 34, 6 Am. Dec. 22; Majors v. Majors, 92 Neb. 473, 138 N. W. 574; Ballou v. Hale, 47 N. H. 347,93 Am. Dec. 438; Woodhull v. Longstreet, 3 Har. 406; Lloyd v. Conover, 1 Dutch. 47; Medlin v. Steele, 75 N. C. 154; Jones v. Reeves, 6 Rich. L. 132. See also Duncan v. Duncan, 93 Ky. 37, 18 S. W. 1022; Blanton v. Howard, 148 Ky. 547, 146 8. W. 1089.

47 See infra, Sec. 494.

48Long v. Dollarhide, 24 Cal. 218; Tuffree v. Polhemus, 108 Cal. 670, 677, 41 Pac. 806; Tomlin v. Hilyard, 43 111. 300,92 Am. Dec. 118; Grimes v. Butts, 66 111. 347; Shepard v. Rinks, 78 111. 188; Gage v, Bissell, 119 111. 298, 10 N. E. 238; Lacy v. Gard, 60 111. App. 72; Folta v. Wert, 103 Ind. 404, 2 N. E. 960; Moore v. Kerr, 46 Ind. 468; Bruce p. Osgood, 113 Ind.360, 14 N. E.

663; Tate v. Foshee, 117 Ind. 322, 20 N. E. 241; Higginson v. Schaneback, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2230, 66 S. W. 1040; Johnston v. Labat, 26 La. Ann. 169; Kunaie v. Nibbelink, 199 Mich. 308, 165 N. W. 722; Wildey v. Bonner's Lessee, 31 Miss. 644; Pipes v. Buckner, 51 Miss. 848; Bompart v. Roderman, 24 Mo. 386; Jackson v. Harder, 4 Johns. 202, 4 Am. Deo. 262; Wood v. Fleet, 36 N. Y. 499, 93 Am. Dec. 528; Piatt v. Hubbell, 5 Ohio, 243; McKnight v. Bell, 135 Pa. 358, 19 Atl. 1036; Wolf v. Wolf, 158 Pa. 621, 28 Atl. 164; Rountree v. Lane, 32 S. C. 160, 10 S. E. 941; Meacham v. Meacham, 91 Tenn. 632, 19 S. W. 757; Stuart v. Baker, 17 Tex. 417; Smock v. Tandy, 28 Tex. 130; Mitchell v. Allen, 69 Tex. 70, 6 8. W. 745; Aycock v. Kimbrough, 71 Tex. 330, 12 S. W. 71, 10 Am. St. Rep. 745; Mass v Bromberg, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 146, 66 S. W. 468; Whitte-more v. Cope, 11 Utah, 344, 40 Pac 256; Allen v. Allen (Utah), 166 Pac 1189; Brasee v. Schofield, 2 Wash. Ty. 209, 3 Pac. 265. See also Berry v. Seawall, 65 Fed. 742, 13 C. C. A. 101.

49 Liverpool Wharf v. Preeoott, 4 Allen, 22, 7 Allen, 494.

50Jenkins v. Trager, 40 Fed. 726; Payne v. McBride, 90 Ark. 168, 131 S. W. 463, Ann. Cos. 1912 B. 661; Clapp v. Churchill, 164 Cal. 741, 130 Pac. 1061; Grants Pass Land etc. Co. v. Brown, 168 Cal. 456, 143 Pac. 754; Smith v. Seits., 87 Conn. 678, 89 Atl. 257; Watrous v. Morrison, 33 Fla. 261, 14 So. 80S, 39 Am. St. Rep. 139; Caratarphen v. Holt, 96 Ga, 703, 23 S. E. 004; Parr v. Wootfolk, 118 Ga. 277, 46 S. E. 230; Grim v. Murphy, 110 111. 271; Duggan v. Uppendahl, 197 111. 179, 64 N. E. 289; Tate v. Foshee,

117 Ind. 322, 20 N. E. 241; Jamison v. Petit, 6 Bush, 669; Garvin v. Threl-keld, 173 Ky. 262, 190 S. W. 1092; Jones v. Pashby, 67 Mich. 459,35 N. W. 162, 11 Am. St. Rep. 689; Pittsburgh Iron Co. p. Lake Superior Iron Co.,

118 Mich. 109, 76 N. W. 395; Archer v. Helm, 69 Miss. 730, 11 So. 3; Blair v. Smith, 16 Mo. 273; Turner v. Baker, 8 Mo. App. 683, 64 Mo. 218, 27 Am. Rep. 226; Atchison v. Pease, 96 Mo. 666, 10 8. W. 159; Barnes v. Allison, 166 Mo. 96, 65 S. W. 781; Bartlett v. Young, 63 N. H. 265; Hitchcock v. Libby, 70 N. H. 399, 47 Atl. 269; Voeburgh v. Teator, 32 N. Y. 561; Bobo v. Richmond, 26 Ohio St. 115; Hagey v. Detweiler, 36 Pa. 409; Cooper v. Austin, 58 Tex. 494; Ham v. Smith, 79 Tea. 310, 15 S. W. 240, 23 Am. St. Rep. 340; Levy v. Maddox, 81 Tex. 210, 16 S. W. 877; Leoomte v. Tou-douse, 82 Tex. 208, 17 S. W. 1047, 27 Am. St. Rep. 870; Cook's Hereford Cattle Co. v. Earnhardt (Tex. Civ. App.), 147 S. W. 662; Gwynn p. Schwarts, 32 W. Va. 487, 9 S. E. 880; Teass v. St. Albans, 38 W. Va. 1, 17 S. E. 400, 19 L. R, A. 802.

51Boyd v. Graves, 4 Wheat. 513, 4 L. Ed. 628; Sharp v. Blankenship, 67 Cal. 441, 7 Pac. 848; Nathan v. Dierssen, 134 Cal. 282, 66 Pac. 485; Lewis v. Ogram, 149 Cal. 605, 87 Pac. 60, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 610, 117 Am. St. 151; Mann v. Mann, 152 Cal. 23, 91 Pac. 994; Miller v. McGlsun, 63 Ga. 435; Fuelling v. Fuesse, 43 Ind. App. 441, 87 N. E. 700; Myrick v. Peet (Mont.), 180 Pac. 574; Vosburgh v. Teator, 32 N. Y. 661; Harris v. Oakley, 130 N. Y. 1, 6, 28 N. E. 530; Ambler v. Cox, 13 Hun, 295; Lennox v. Hendricks, 11 Oreg. 33, 4 Pac 515; Nichol v. Lytle, 4 Yerg. 456, 26 Am. Dec. 240; Gilchrist v. McGee, 9 Yerg. 456; Lewallen p. Overton, 9 Humph. 76; George v. Collins, 72 W. Va. 26, 77 S. E. 356; Hartung v. Witte, 59 Wis. 286, 18 N. W. 175. See further 57 Cent. L. J. 449.