This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
Since the statute of frauds takes away no requisite of a valid contract but merely adds a requisite as to the means of proof,1 a contract on valuable consideration for the conveyance of realty,2 as in return for a contract to erect a party-wall,3 or for personal services,4 or for promisee's publishing a newspaper in the
3 Wilson v. Owens, 86 Fed. 371; 30 C. C. A. 257; Myers v. Mathis (Ind. Ter.) , 46 S. W. 178.
4 Maxwell Land Grant Co. v. Dawson. 7 N. M. 133; 34 Pac. 191 (not affected on this point by its reversal in 151 U. S. 586); Mc-Kennon v. Winn, 1 Okla. 327; 22 L. R. A 501; 33 Pac. 582.
5 See Sec. 752.
6 "The courts of England have declared that the substance of contracts within the statute is not affected by the statute, but that whether they are to be enforced or not is dependent upon the enforcement of a rule of evidence, and therefore it is necessary in order to get the advantage of the statute, that it should be properly pleaded. Our court, however, holds that the statute affects the contract itself, and therefore whenever one is required to prove the contract which he seeks to enforce (if it be one within the purview of the statute) he must show that it has been executed in contemplation of the statute, and that by legal evidence." Jordan v. Furnace Co., 126 X. C. 143. 146: 78 Am. St. Rep. 644; 35 S. E. 247.
1See Sec. 741.
2 Donahue's Appeal, 62 Conn. 370; 26 Atl. 309: Wallace v. Long, 105 Ind. 522; 55 Am. Rep. 222: 5 X. E. 666; Becker v. Mason. 30 Kan. 697; 2 Pac. 850: Dowling v. McKenney. 124 Mass. 478; Kelley v. Kelley. 54 Mich. 30: 19 N. W. 580; Woods v. Ward, 48 W. Va. 652; 37 S. E. 520: Koch v. Williams, 82 Wis. 186; 52 X. W. 257; Par-rish v. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.), 53 S. W. 79: Arnold v. Ellis, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 262: 48 S. W. 883.
3Tillis v. Treadwell. 117 Ala. 445: 22 So. 983.
4 Legal services. Donahue's Appeal, 62 Conn. 370: 26 Atl. 399; town in which the land is situate,5 or becoming surety on an appeal bond, so that action involving title to the land in question may be appealed,6 are all of them within the statute.7