This clause of the statute includes contracts which create or convey any interest in or concerning realty except such interests as may be specifically or impliedly excepted therefrom by statute. It includes contracts to convey realty or some estate therein inter vivos.1 Thus a contract by a husband to convey community real estate to his wife is within the statute.2 So an oral contract whereby a number of heirs agree that if a co-heir will defend a suit brought against them and save them from all costs, he shall have all the realty inherited by them from their common ancestor, is within the statute.3 Thus an oral executory contract to partition realty among co-tenants,4 or to exchange realty,5 is within the statute. So is an oral contract to warrant title to realty,6 or to submit to arbitration a question

4 Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 106 Wis. 499; 80 Am. St. Rep. 54; 48 L. R. A. 830; 81 N. W. 1027 (rehearing denied), 82 N. W. 534.

1McKinnon v. Mixon, 128 Ala. 612; 29 So. 690; Tolleson v. Black-stock, 95 Ala. 510; 11 So. 284; Lyons v. Bass, 108 Ga, 573; 34 S. E. 721; Jackson v. Myers, 120 Ind. 504; 22 N. E. 90; 23 N. E. 86; Hershman v. Pascal, 4 Ind. App. 330; 30 N. E. 932; Bishop v. Martin (Ky.), 65 S. W. 807; Fuqua v. Fuqua (Ky.), 16 S. W. 353; McLennan v. Boutell. 117 Mich. 544; 76 N. W. 75; McDonald v. Maltz, 78 Mich. 685; 44 N. W. 337; Far-gusson v. Improvement Co., 56 Minn. 222; 57 N. W. 480; Watson v. Ry., 46 Minn. 321; 48 N. W. 1129; Taylor v. Von Schraeder, 107 Mo. 206; 16 S. W. 675; Bloomfield State Bank v. Miller, 55 Neb. 243; 70 Am. St. Rep. 381; 44 L. R. A. 387; 75

N. W. 569; Vick v. Vick, 126 N. C. 123; 35 S. E. 257; Jordan v. Furnace Co., 126 N. C. 143; 78 Am. St. Rep. 644; 35 S. E. 247; Reed v. Adams, 172 Pa. St. 127; 33 Atl. 700; Bowen v. Sayles, 23 R. I. 34; 49 Atl. 103; Cleveland v. Evans, 5 S. D. 53; 58 N. W. 8; Lombard Investment Co. v. Carter, 7 Wash. 4; 38 Am. St. Rep. 861; 34 Pac. 209.

2 Churchill v. Stephenson, 14 Wash. 620; 45 Pac. 28.

3Howton v. Gilpin (Ky.). 69 S. W. 766.

4 Berry v. Seawell, 65 Fed. 742; 13 C. C. A. 101.

5Purcell v. Miner, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 513; Webb v. Ballard, 90 Ala. 357; 7 So. 443; Dennis v. Kuster, 57 Kan. 215: 45 Pac. 602; Newlin v. Hoyt, - Minn. -; 98 N. W. 323.

6 Bishop v. Little. 5 Green 1.

(Me.) 362: Aird v. Alexander. 72

Miss. 358; 18 So. 478; Kelly v. Palinvolving title to realty.7 It also includes contracts to devise realty.8 Since the question of the application of the statute to contracts to devise seems to turn on the nature of the property of decedent, owned by him at his death when his will takes effect, the statute applies if decedent's property, owned by him at his death, is realty,9 and does not apply if it is personalty.10 A contract not to make a will to affect the interests of a given heir is within the statute as being a negative method of contracting for a conveyance of realty.11