If A buys land from X with A's own money, and takes the title in his own name, under a contract with B to convey such realty to B when B should pay to A the price of such realty, A's contract is within the statute.1 Thus if a A agrees to buy at foreclosure sale for B, who has probably no interest in the realty, such contract is within the statute.2 The same rule obtains where B is to pay a part of the purchase price and to receive a part interest in the realty.3 Thus where A and B agreed to buy at an executor's sale a tract of land lying between their respective holdings and divide such tract equally between them, such contract is within the statute.4 Thus if A is B's agent and buys land with A's money, A's promise to convey to B is within the statute.5 Indeed a contract whereby A agrees to buy land for B, as B's agent, is within the statute as long as B's money is not actually expended in the purchase of such property.6 Some authorities, however, hold that such breach of contract by an agent amounts to a constructive fraud, and makes him trustee of an implied trust. Where this theory is adopted the statute of frauds has, of course, no application in equity.7 If the parties are in a fiduciary relation outside of the mere contract of agency, such breach of contract may be treated as constructive fraud.8 In this case the statute of frauds will not prevent relief in equity.9

498; 80 N. W. 551; Grunow v. Salter, 118 Mich. 148; 76 N. W. 325.

5 Gary v. Newton, 201 111. 170; 66 N. E. 267.

1Fiske v. Soule, 87 Cal. 313; 25 Pac. 430; Smith v. Price, 39 111. 28; 89 Am. Dec. 284; Dodder v. Snyder, 110 Mich. 69; 67 N. W. 1101.

2 Dodder v. Snyder. 110 Mich. 69; 67 N. W. 1101 (citing Adams v. Watkins, 103 Mich. 431; 61 N. W. 774; Vanderkarr v. Thompson. 19 Mich. 82) ; Jones v. Timmons, 21 O. S. 596.

3 Dodder v. Snyder, 110 Mich. 69; 67 N. W. 1101.

1 Williams v. Gibson, 84 Ala. 228; 5 Am. St. Rep. 368; 4 So. 350; Schlanker v. Smith, 27 Mo. App. 516.

1 McDearmon v. Burnham, 158 111. 55; 41 N. E. 1094; Rogers v. Simmons, 55 111. 76; Benge v. Benge (Ky.) , 23 S. W. 668; Nagengast v. Alz, 93 Md. 522; 49 Atl. 333; Randall v. Constans, 33 Minn. 329; 23 N. W. 530.

2 McDearmon v. Burnham, 158 111. 55; 41 N. E. 1094. A different rule would seem to apply if B has an interest in the realty, such as that of mortgagor.

See Sec. 647.

3Dunphy v. Ryan, 116 U. S. 491; McElroy v. Swope, 47 Fed. 380; Rob-bins v. Kimball, 55 Ark. 414; 29 Am. St. Rep. 45; 18 S. W. 457; Roughton v. Rawlings, 88 Ga. 819; 16 S. E. 89; Morton v. Nelson, 145 111. 586; 32 N. E. 916; 31 N. E. 168; Furber v. Page, 143 111. 622; 32 X. E. 444; Parsons v. Phelan, 134 Mass. 109; Schultz v. Waldons, 60 X. J. Eq. 71; 47 Atl. 187; Levy v. Brush, 45 N. Y. 589; Bruce v. Hastings, 41 Vt. 380; 98 Am. Dec. 592; Walker v. Tyler, 94 Va. 532; 27 S. E. 434. Cases of this class where A buys land from X under contract to convey a part thereof to B, should be studied in connection with oral contracts to form a partnership to deal in realty.

See Sec. 648.

4 Roughton v. Rawlings, 88 Ga. 819; 16 S. E. 89.

5 James v. Smith (1891), 1 Ch. 384; Burden v. Sheridan, 36 la.

125; 14 Am. Rep. 505; Fowke v. Slaughter, 3 A. K. Mar. (Ky.) 56; 13 Am. Dec. 133; Nagengast v. Alz, 93 Md. 522; 49 Atl. 333; Bourke v. Callanan, 160 Mass. 195; 35 X. E. 460; Nestal v. Schmid, 29 X. J. Eq. 458; Watson v. Erb, 33 O. S. 35; Whiting v. Dyer, 21 R. I. 278; 43 Atl. 181.

6 James v. Smith (1891), 1 Ch. 384; Raub v. Smith, 61 Mich. 543; 1 Am. St. Rep. 619; 28 X. W. 676; Nesbitt v. Cavender, 27 S. C. 1; 2 S. E. 702.

7 Irvine v. Marshall, 20 How. (U. S.) 558; Boswell v. Cunningham, 32 Fla. 277; 21 L. R. A. 54; 13 So. 354; Rose v. Hayden, 35 Kan. l06; 57 Am. Rep. 145; 10 Pac. 554.

8 See ch. XL

9Valette v. Tedens, 122 111. 607; 3 Am. St. Rep. 502; 14 X. E. 52; Haight v. Pearson, 11 Utah 51; 39 Pac. 479.