While in case of a breach of a contract which falls within the statute of frauds and does not comply with its requirements, no recovery can be had for damages for breach of the executory part thereof, different considerations exist when property has been delivered or services rendered under such a contract. As will be considered hereafter1 the party not in default has, in contracts not affected by the statute of frauds, the right to ignore the contract and sue for a reasonable compensation for property furnished or services rendered by him under such contract, whenever such facts arise as amount to a complete discharge thereof. Illegal contracts form an exception to this rule.2 Now a contract is in no proper sense illegal because it falls within the terms of the statute of frauds and does not comnold, 3 Met. (Mass.) 486; 37 Am. Dec. 155.

10 Long v. Hartwell, 34 N. J. L. 116.

11 Swain v. Seamens, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 254.

12 Cummings v. Arnold, 3 Met. (Mass.) 486; 37 Am. Dec. 155.

13 Stearns v. Hall, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 31.

14 Brush-Swan Electric Light Co. v. Electric Co., 41 Fed. 163; Stearns v. Hall, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 31.

1 See Ch. LXXIV.

2 See Sec. 519.

ply with its requirements.3 The statute of frauds was intended solely to prevent oral proof of contracts in actions based thereon ; not to enable a party to a contract to retain benefits received thereunder without liability therefor.4 Accordingly, if A and B have entered into such a contract and A has delivered property to B in performance of such contract5 as under a contract not to be performed within the year,6 or has paid him money,7 as under a contract not to be performed within the year,8 or for the sale of realty,9 B must restore such property10 or make a reasonable compensation for such property11 if B seeks to avoid the contract on the ground of the statute of frauds. The right to recover money thus paid exists even if the right to specific performance exists.12 If specific personalty has been delivered under a contract to exchange such personalty for realty, and has been retained by the vendor, who refuses performance the vendee may maintain an action for its reasonable value even if the vendor has not converted it into money. He is not obliged to resort to replevin or trover.13 So if A has rendered services of which B has received the benefit,14 as if services were rendered under a contract to convey realty in recompense therefor,15 or under a contract that cannot be performed within the year,16 especially where the services are rendered by an infant,17 B must make compensation for such services.18 Thus, if A renders services to B in consideration of an oral agreement by B to devise certain realty to A, A can recover a reasonable compensation from B's estate for services thus rendered.19 If A furnishes board to B under an oral contract whereby B agrees to devise property to A's child, and B does not perform such contract, A can recover a reasonable compensation for such board and lodging.20 So where B, the owner of realty, makes an oral contract with A for the sale thereof, and A takes possession and makes valuable improvements under circumstances which make specific performance impracticable, A may have compensation for such improvements,21 in equity in some jurisdictions,22 and in other jurisdictions even at law.23 So compensation has been allowed at law for work in preparing ground and putting in a crop under an oral agreement for a lease.24

3 See Sec. 738 et seq.

4 Henderson v. Treadway, 69 111. App. 357; Miller v. Roberts. 169 Mass. 134; 47 X. E. 585; Cadman v. Markle, 76 Mich. 448; 5 L. R. A. 707; 43 N. W. 315; Emery v. Smith. 46 N. H. 151; Abbott v. Draper, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 51; Pierce v. Paine, 28 Vt. 34.

5 Peabody v. Fellows, 177 Mass. 290; 58 X. E. 1019; Hawley v. Moody, 24 Vt. 603. Realty, Pea-body v. Fellows, 177 Mass. 290; 58 N. E. 1019; Andrews v. Broughton, 78 Mo. App. 179. Personalty, Dietrich v. Hoefelmeir, 128 Mich. 145; 87 N. W. 111.

6 Roberts v. Tennell, 3 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 246.

7 Whyte v. Rosencrantz, 123 Cal. 634; 69 Am. St. Rep. 90; 56 Pac. 436; Walker v. Walker (Ky.), 55 S. W. 726; Jellison v. Jordan. 68 Me. 373; Root v. Burt. 118 Mass. 521; Scott v. Bush, 26 Mich. 418; 12 Am. Rep. 311; Moody v. Smith, 70 N. Y. 598; Gottschalk v. Witter, 25 O. S. 76; Love v. Burton (Tenn. Ch. App.), 61 S. W. 91; Taylor v. Deseve, 81 Tex. 246; 16 S. W.

1008; Moore v. Powell, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 43; 25 S. W. 472; Hawley v. Moody, 24 Vt. 603.

8 Montague v. Garnett, 3 Bush. (Ky.) 297; Weber v. Weber (Ky.),

7 S. W. 507.

9 Cook v. Doggett, 2 All. (Mass.) 439; Wright v. Dickinson, 67 Mich. 580; 11 Am. St. Rep. 602; 35 X. W. 164; Pressnell v. Lundin, 44 Minn. 551; 47 N. W. 161; Patterson v. Hawley. 33 Neb. 440; 50 X. W. 324; Durham, etc., Co. v. Guthrie, 116 X. C. 381; 21 S. E. 952; Bedell v. Tracy, 65 Vt. 494; 26 Atl. 1031; Harney v. Burhans, 91 Wis. 348; 64 X. W. 1031.

10 Dietrich v. Hoefelmeir. 128 Mich. 145; 87 X. W. 111.

11 Wolke v. Fleming, 103 Ind. 105; 53 Am. Rep. 495; 2 X. E. 325; Dowling v. McKenney, 124 Mass. 478; Dix v. Marcy. 116 Mass. 416; Williams v. Bemis. 108 Mass. 91; 11 Am. Rep. 318; Luey v. Bundy, 9 X. H. 298; 32 Am. Dec. 359: Smith v. Smith, 28 X. J. L. 208; 78 Am. Dec. 49; Lockwood v. Barnes, 3 Hill (X. Y.) 128; 38 Am. Dec. 620.

12 Reynolds v. Reynolds, 74 Vt. 463; 52 Atl. 1036.

13 Booker v. Wolf, 195 111. 365; 63 N. E. 265; reversing, 97 111. App. 139.

14Bucki v. McKinnon. 37 Fla. 391; 20 So. 540; Hudson v. Hudson, 87 Ga. 678; 27 Am. St. Rep. 270; 13 S. E. 583; Schanzenbaeh v. Brough, 58 111. App. 526: Miller v. Eldridge, 126 Ind. 461; 27 N. E. 132; Schoonover v. Vachon, 121 Ind. 3; 22 N. E. 777; Taggart v. Tevanny. 1 Ind. App. 339; 27 N. E. 511; Smith v. Lotton. 5 Ind. App. 177; 31 N. E. 816; Aiken v. Nogle, 47 Kan. 96; 27 Pac. 825; Myers v. Korb (Ky.), 50 S. W. 1108; Ham-bell v. Hamilton, 3 Dana (Ky.) 501; Hamilton v. Thirston, 93 Md. 213; 48 Atl. 709; Cadman v. Mar-kle, 76 Mich. 448; 5 L. R. A. 707; 43 N, W. 315; Clowe v. Pine Product Co., 114 X. C. 304; 19 S. E. 153; Roberts v. Wood Working Co., Ill X. C. 432: 16 S. E. 415: Treece v. Treece, 5 Lea (Tenn.) 317; Koch v. Williams, 82 Wis. 186; 52 X. W. 257; Tucker v. Grover, 60 Wis. 240; 19 X. W. 62; Cohen v. Stein, 61 Wis. 508; 21 X. W. 514.

15Mills v. Joiner, 20 Fla. 479; Thomas v. McManus (Ky.) ; 64 S. W. 446; Tucker v. Grover, 60 Wis. 240; 19 X. W. 62.

16 Bethel v. Booth, - Ky. -;

17 Meyers v. Korb (Ky.) , 50 S. 72 S. W. 803; Snyder v. Neal, 129 Mich. 692; 89 X. W. 588; Cadman v. Markle, 76 Mich. 448; 5 L. R. A. 707; 43 X. W. 315. W. 1108; Towsley v. Moore, 30 O. S. 184; 27 Am. Rep. 434.

18 Clark v. Davidson. 53 Wis. 317; 10 X. W. 384.

19 Hudson v. Hudson. 87 Ga. 678; 27 Am. St. Rep. 270; 13 S. E. 583; Miller v. Eldridge, 126 Ind. 461; 27 X. E. 132; Schoonover v. Vachon, 121 Ind. 3; 22 X. E. 777; Hamilton v. Thirston. 93 Md. 213: 48 Atl. 709; Estate of Kessler, 87 Wis. 660; 41 Am. St. Rep. 74; 59 X. W 129.