If in reliance on the oral contract the vendee has taken possession of the realty sold,1 has paid part or all of the consideration agreed upon and has made valuable improvements upon such realty, the contract is not within the statute in equity.2

7 Boggs v. Bodkin, 32 W. Va. 566; 5 L. R. A. 245; 9 S. E. 891.

8Fenner v. Blake (1900), 1 Q. B. 426;. Wheeler v. Walden, 17 Neb. 122; 22 N. W. 346; Bedford v. Ter-hune, 30 N. Y. 462; 86 Am. Dec. 394; Telford v. Frost, 76 Wis. 172; 44 N. W. 835; Goldsmith v. Darling, 92 Wis. 363; 66 N. W. 397; Hutch-ins v. Da Costa, 88 Wis. 371; 60 1ST. W. 427; O'Donnell v. Brand, 85 Wis. 97; 55 N. W. 154.

9 Telford v. Frost, 76 Wis. 172; 44 N. W. 835.

10 Stewart v. McLaughlin, 126 Mich. 1; 85 N. W. 266; 87 N. W. 218; modified on the question of damages, 126 Mich. 6; Maxon v. Gates, 112 Wis. 196; 88 N. W. 54.

1 What constitutes such possession is subsequently discussed. See Sec. 726, 727.

2 Townsend v. Vanderwerker, 160 U. S. 171; Pembroke v. Logan, -Ark. -; 74 S. W. 297; Epps v. Story, 109 Ga. 302; 34 S. E. 662; McClure v. Otrich, 118 111. 320; 8 N. E. 784; Swales v. Jackson, 126 Ind. 282; 26 N. E. 62; Marsh v. Davis, 33 Kan. 326; 6 Pac. 612; Goodwin v. Smith, 89 Me. 506; 36 Atl. 997; Johnson v. Hurley, 115 Mo. 513; 22 S. W. 492; Schloet-terer v. Wagner (N. J. Eq.), 21