Thus far the acts commonly relied on as part performance have been treated as to their effect in combination. A discussion of their effect separately still remains. If the vendee in reliance upon an oral contract for the sale of realty takes possession thereof, such mere change of possession is of itself sufficient to take the contract out of the statute.1 Thus a ven-

Chalfant, 15 Ohio 248; 45 Am. Dec. 574; Olmstead v. Abbott, 61 Vt. 281; 18 Atl. 315.

8 Shearer v. Gibson, 123 Mich. 467; 82 N. W. 206.

9 Thomas v. Kyles, 54 N. C. 302. So under the California Statute where the contract is made by an agent without authority in writing. Hall v. Wallace, 88 Cal. 434; 26 Pac. 360.

10 North v. Bunn, 122 N. C. 766; 29 S. E. 776.

11 Pass v. Brooks. 125 N. C. 129; 34 S. E. 228; Albea v. Griffin, 22 N. C 9.

12 Luton v. Badham. 127 N. C. 96; SO Am. St. Rep. 783; 53 L. R. A. 337; 37 S. E. 143.

1 Bullion, etc., Bank v. Otto, 59 Fed. 256; Kimbrough v. Nelms, 104

Ala. 554; 16 So. 619; Trammell v. Craddock, 100 Ala. 266; 13 Ala. 911; Houston v. Hilton. 67 Ala. 374; Lacy v. Gard, 60 111. App. 72; Pu-terbaugh v. Puterbaugh, 131 Ind. 288; 15 L. R. A. 341; 30 N. E. 519; Ague v. Seitsinger, 85 la. 305; 52 N. W. 228; Anderson v. Canter,

10 Kan. App. 167; 63 Pac. 285; O'Grady v. O'Grady, 162 Mass. 290; 38 N. E. 196; Pike v. Pike, 121 Mich. 170; 80 N. W. 5; Bennett v, Knowles, 111 Mich. 226; 69 N. W. 491; Toan v. Pline, 60 Mich. 385; 27 N. W. 557; Weed v. Terry, 2 Dougl. (Mich.) 344; 45 Am. Dee. 257; Archer v. Helm. 69 Miss. 730;

11 So. 3; Bless v. Jenkins, 129 Mo. 647; 31 S. W. 938; Carney v. Carney. 95 Mo. 353; 8 S. W. 729; Smith v.Pierce, 65 Vt. 200; 25 Atl. 1092; dee2 or lessee3 in possession under the contract cannot resist payment under the contract. This may, however, be looked upon in this sense as full performance on the part of the vendor: though it is not strictly speaking full performance, as the legal title has not passed. So a note given in consideration of an oral contract to devise realty is enforceable if the heirs of the devisee are in possession of the realty contracted for.4 Change of possession has, however, been held insufficient if the contract is to be enforced against the vendee.5 Some jurisdictions hold that change of possession is not of itself sufficient to keep the statute of frauds from applying, if such change of possession does no injury to the vendee and confers no benefit on the vendor.6