If the vendee takes possession of realty under an oral control for its sale and alters his position in reliance on such contract, the contract is not within the statute.1 Illustrations of the change of condition here referred are as follows: Giving a note and mortgage,2 payment by vendee to a third person of a debt of vendor assumed by him as part of the purchase price of the realty sold,3 removal by vendee of fixtures and machinery at great expense from the realty sold,4 abandonment by vendee of his former employment, change of residence and support of the vendor,5 or the purchase of a mill site and the construction of a dam by promisee in reliance on an oral promise to allow him to flow the land of another.6

41 S. E. 758; Rapley v. Klugh, 40 S. C. 134; 18 S. E. 680; Watts v. Witt, 39 S. C. 356: 17 S. E. 822; Griffith v. Abbott, 56 Vt. 356; Brow-der v. Phinney, 30 Wash. 74; 70 Pac. 264.

2 Russell v. Napier, 80 Ga. 77; 4 S. E. 857.

3 Bradley v. Owsley, 74 Tex. 69; 11 S. W. 1052; Ann Berta Lodge v. Leverton, 42 Tex. 18; Robinson v. Davenport, 40 Tex. 342: Hickman v. Withers, 83 Tex. 575: 19 S. W. 138; Merchants National Bank v. Eustis, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 350; 28 S. W. 227.

1 Andrew v. Babcock, 63 Conn. 109; 26 Atl. 715: Hatfield v. Miller. 123 Ind. 463; 24 X. E. 330; Rosenberger v. Jones, 118 Mo. 559; 24 S. W. 203; White v. Ingram, 110 Mo. 474; 19 S. W. 827; Olmstead v. Abbott, 61 Vt. 281; 18 Atl. 315.

2 Hatfield v. Miller, 123 Ind. 463; 24 N. E. 330.

3 Rosenberger v. Jones, 118 Mo. 559; 24 S. W. 203.

4 Andrew v. Babcoek, 63 Conn. 109; 26 Atl. 715.

5Hinkle v. Hinkle, 55 Ark. 583; 18 S. W. 1049; see Pike v. Pike, 121 Mich. 170; 80 Am. St. Rep. 488; 80 X. W. 5: for similar fatcts.

6 Olmstead v. Abbott, 61 Vt. 281,-18 Atl. 315. For a similar state of facts see Wilson v. Chalfant. 15 Ohio 248: 45 Am. Dec. 574; Heis-kell v. Cobb, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 638