If, in an action on a contract within the statute of frauds and not complying with its requirements, the statute of frauds is not taken advantage of in a proper manner by raising the question on the pleadings or on the admission of oral evidence, the defence of the statute is waived and the contract can be enforced though oral, and though proved by oral evidence only.1 If the pleading which sets up the oral contract does not show affirmatively that it is oral, a demurrer to such pleading cannot be sustained because of the statute of frauds. If the contract is pleaded in a manner sufficient to satisfy the common law rules before the statute of frauds, and if it does not appear affirmatively that it is an oral contract, it is pleaded in a manner sufficient to satisfy the statute and the adversary party must raise the question of the statute of frauds in some way other than by demurrer.2 While in most of these cases the contract is pleaded by the plaintiff the same rule applies where the defendant pleads it.8 But where by statute no reply is necessary to matter of defence set up in the answer, plaintiff may take advantage of the statute of frauds to avoid the contract alleged by defendant without further pleading.4 If the pleading which sets up the oral contract shows affirmatively that it is oral, some authorities hold that such pleading is not demurrable, on the ground that a demurrer admits the existence of the contract while the defence of the statute of frauds is not expressly interposed.5 The weight of authority, however, holds that such pleading can be demurred to, on the ground that it shows affirmatively the existence of a valid defence to the contract alleged.6

1 Carter v. Fischer, 127 Ala. 52; 28 So. 376; St. Louis, etc., Ry. v. Hall -Ark.-; 74 S. W. 293; Burt v. Wilson, 28 Cal. 632; 87 Am. Dec. 142; Tift v. Weslosky Co., 113 Ga. 681; 39 S. E. 503; Sanford v. Davis, 181 111. 570; 54 N. E. 977; Walters v. Walters, 132 111. 467; 23 X. E. 1120; Tarleton v. Vietes, 1 Gil. (111.) 470; 41 Am. Dec. 193; Bryant v. Everly (Ky.) , 57 S. W. 231; Iverson v. Cirkel, 56 Minn. 299; 57 X. W. 800; Missouri Real Estate Co. v. Sims -Mo.-; 78 S. W. 1006; Maybee v. Moore, 90 Mo. 340; 2 S. W. 471; Davis v. Greenwood, 2 Neb. Unoff. 317; 96 X. W. 526; Connor v. Hingtgen, 19 Neb. 472; 27 X. W. 443; Gough v. Williamson, 62 X. J. Eq. 526; 50 Atl. 323; Fee v. Sharkey. 60 X. J. Eq. 446; 45 Atl. 1091; affirming 59 X. J. Eq. 284; 44 Atl. 673; Ashmore v. Evans, 11 X. J. Eq. 151; Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N. Y. 538; 21 Am. St. Rep. 693; 12 L.

R. A. 463; 27 X. E. 256; Duffy v. O'Donovan, 46 X. Y. 223; Suber v. Richards, 61 S. C. 393; 39 S. E. 540; Gregory v. Farris (Tenn. Ch. App.) , 56 S. W. 1059; Smith v. Ruohs (Tenn. Ch. App.), 54 S. W. 161; Abba v. Smyth, 21 Utah 109; 59 Pac. 756; Sartwell v. Sowles, 72 Vt. 270; 82 Am. St. Rep. 943; 48 Atl. 11; Pike v. Pike, 69 Vt. 535; 38 Atl. 265; Battell v. Matot, 58 Vt. 271; 5 Atl. 479; Atkinson v. Washington and Jefferson College - W-Va.-; 46 S. E. 263; Barrett v. McAllister, 33 W. Va. 738; 11 S. E. 220.

2 Evans v. Ry., 133 Ala. 482; 32 So. 138; Gale v. Harp, 64 Ark. 462; 43 S. W. 144; Bradford Investment Co. v. Joost, 117 Cal. 204; 48 Pac. 1083; Curtiss v. Ins. Co., 90 Cal. 245; 25 Am. St. Rep. 114; 27 Pac. 211; Baldwin v. Bank, 17 Colo. App. 7; 67 Pac. 179; Taliaferro v. Smiley, 112 Ga. 62; 37 S. E. 106; Draper v. Dry Goods Co., 103 Ga.

661; 68 Am. St. Rep. 136; 30 S. E. 566; Speyer v. Desjardins, 144 111. 641; 36 Am. St. Rep. 473; 32 N. E. 283; Switzer v. Skiles, 8 111. 529; 44 Am. Dec. 723; Hamilton v. Thurston, 93 Md. 213; 48 Atl. 709; Mullaly v. Holden, 123 Mass. 583; Stearns v. Ry., 112 Mich. 651; 71 N. W. 148; Harris Photographic Co. v. Fisher.. 81 Mich. 136; 45 N. W. 661; Benton v. Schulte, 31 Minn. 312; 17 N. W. 621; Stillwell v. Hamm, 97 Mo. 579; 11 S. W. 252; Sharkey v. McDermott, 91 Mo. 647; 60 Am. Rep. 270; 4 S. W. 107; Reed v. Crane, 89 Mo. App. 670; Whitehead v. Burgess, 61 N. J. L. 75; 38 Atl. 802; Hinchman v. Ru-tan, 31 N. J. L. 496; Marston v. Swett, 66 N. Y. 206; 23 Am. Rep. 43; Gladwefl v. Hume, 18 Ohio C. C. 845; Cranston v. Smith, 6 R. I. 231; Carroway v. Anderson, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 61; Horm v. Sham-blin, 57 Tex. 243; Murphy v. Stell, 43 Tex. 123; Robbins v. Deverill. 20 Wis. 142. Contra, in Kentucky, where it is said to be "well settled that a contract which is not alleged to be in writing must be held to be by parol." Morgan v. Wickliffe, 110 Ky. 215; 61 S. W. 13; Hocker

72 v. Gentry, 3 Met. (Ky.) 463. So by statute in some jurisdictions, Horner v. McConnell, 158 Ind. 280; 63 N. E. 472; Windell v. Hudson, 102 Ind. 521; 2 N. E. 303; Ice v. Ball, 102 Ind. 42; 1 N. E. 66; Pulse v. Miller, 81 Ind. 190; Wiseman v. Thompson, 94 la. 607; 63 X. W. 346.

3 Walker v. Edmundson, 111 Ga. 454; 36 S. E. 800; Hurt v. Ford, 142 Mo. 283; 41 L. R. A. 823; 44 S. W. 228.

4 Steed v. Harvey, 18 Utah 367; 72 Am. St. Rep. 789; 54 Pac. 1011.

5Hemings v. Doss, 125 N. C. 400; 34 S. E. 511; Williams v. Lumber Co., 118 N. C. 928; 24 S. E. 800; Loughran v. Giles, 110 N. C. 423; 14 S. E. 966.

6 Thompson v. Coal Co., 135 Ala. 630; 93 Am. St. Rep. 49; 34 So. 31; Gary v. Newton, 201 111. 170; 66 N. E. 267; Dicken v. McKinley, 163 111. 318; 54 Am. St. Rep. 471; 45 N. E. 134; Speyer v. Desjar dins, 144 111. 641; 36 Am. St. Rep. 473; 32 N. E. 283; Burden v. Knight, 82 la. 584; 48 N. W. 985; Richards v. Richards, 9 Gray (Mass.) 313; Howard v. Brower, 37 0. S. 402.

The question really turns on the local practice concerning pleadings which are sufficient in themselves but which go farther and show a valid defence or reply thereto which the adversary party may or may not take advantage of. If the party against whom the contract is sought to be enforced pleads, denying the exist ence of such contract and, at the trial, objects to the introduction of oral evidence to prove such contract the statute of frauds is properly invoked.7 Under such pleadings, the defence of the statute may also be raised by a motion to strike out oral evidence of the contract already introduced,8 or by a demurrer to the evidence.9 If, however, no objection is made to the introduction of oral evidence tending to prove the contract, the defence of the statute is thereby waived.10 Thus an objection that there was no written memorandum of the contract cannot be made after the evidence is all in and the argument to the jury has begun,11 nor can it be raised for the first time in error proceedings.12 An answer which does not specifically deny the existence of the contract alleged but does so in effect by alleging another and a different contract, is such a denial of the contract as to invoke the statute of frauds.13 However, if the contract alleged by the defendant is that alleged by the plaintiff except that it does not cover so wide a subject-matter, plaintiff may have the contract, though oral, enforced as far as admitted by defendant.14 Some authorities, however, hold that a general denial is not a proper method of invoking, the defence of the statute.15 In Iowa this question must be raised by demurrer if it appears on the face of the pleading, and is waived otherwise.16 If the existence of the contract is not denied, the statute of frauds may be invoked by a pleading denying that the contract alleged or any note or memorandum thereof was in writing and claiming the benefit of the statute.17 A pleading which alleges that the contract alleged by the adversary party was not in writing and is "contrary to the statute in such cases made and provided," contains sufficient allegations to interpose the statute of frauds as a defence.18 A pleading which merely alleges as a conclusion that defendant is not equitably or morally bound to carry out the agreement,19 or that the contract is barred by the statute,20 without alleging the fact that neither the contract nor any note or memorandum thereof was in writing is insufficient.

7 May V. Sloan, 101 U. S. 231; Feeney v. Howard, 79 Cal. 525; 12 Am. St. Rep. 162; 4 L. R. A. 826; 21 Pac. 984; Adams & Westlake Co. v. Westlake, 92 111. App. 616; Su-man v. Springate, 67 Ind. 115; Indiana Trust Co. v. Finitzer, 160 Ind. 647; 67 N. E. 520; Thompson v. Frakes, 112 la. 585; 84 N. W. 703; Klein v. Ins. Co. (Ky.), 57 S. W. 250; Hamilton v. Thirston, 93 Md. 213; 48 Atl. 709; Third National Bank v. Steel, 129 Mich. 434; 88 N. W. 1050; Bean v. Lamprey, 82 Minn. 320; 84 N. W. 1016; Barn-brick v. Bambrick, 157 Mo. 423; 58 S. W. 8; Hackett v. Watts, 138 Mo. 502; 40 S. W. 113; Riif v. Riibe, - Neb.- ; 94 N. W. 517; Busick v. Van Ness, 44 N. J. Eq. 82; 12 Atl. 609; Browning v. Berry, 107 N. C. 231; 10 L. R. A. 726; 12 S. E. 195; Holler v. Richards. 102 N. C. 545; 9 S. E. 460; Birchell v. Neaster, 36 O. S. 331: Hillhouse v. Jennings, 60 S. C. 373; 38 S. E..

599; Moody v. Jones (Tex.), 37 S. W. 379; Williams-Hayward Shoe Co. v. Brooks, 9 Wyom. 424; 64 Pac. 342.

8 Hillhouse v. Jennings, 60 S. C. 373; 38 S. E. 599. (The court saying that such a motion might be treated as a demurrer to the evidence. )

9 Bambrick v. Bambrick, 157 Mo. 423; 58 S. W. 8. (In this case a peremptory instruction to the jury was held proper.) Apparently contra, Neuvirth v. Engler, 83 Mo. App. 420; Miller v. Harper, 63 Mo. App. 293; Scharff v. Klein, 29 Mo. App. 549.

10 Cosand v. Bunker, 2 S. D. 294; 50 N. W. 84; Sartwell v. Sowles, 72 Vt. 270; 82 Am. St. Rep. 943; 48 Atl. 11; Pike v. Pike, 69 Vt. 535; 38 Atl. 265; Battell v. Matot. 58 Vt. 271; 5 Atl. 479.

11 Montgomery v. Edwards, 46 Vt. 151: 14 Am. Rep. 618.

12Marr v. Ry., 121 la. 117; 96 N. W. 716; Hart v. Garcia (Tex. Civ. App.), 63 S. W. 921.

13 Barrett v. McAllister, 33 W. Va. 738; 11 S. E. 220.

14 Gough v. Williamson, 62 N. J. Eq. 526; 50 Atl. 323.

15 Martin v. Blanchett, 77 Ala. 288; Guynn v. McCauley, 32 Ark. 97; McLure v. Koen, 25 Colo. 284; 53 Pac. 1058; Wickham v. Association, 80 111. App. 523; Lawrence v. Chase, 54 Me. 196; Graffam v. Pierce, 143 Mass. 386; 9 N. E. 819; Matthews v. Matthews, 154 N. Y. 288; 48 N. E. 531; Crane v. Powell, 139 N. Y. 379; 34 N. E. 911; Earner v. Sidway, 124 N. Y. 538; 21

Am. St. Rep. 693; 12 L. R. A. 463; 27 N. E. 256; Barnes v. Coal Co., 101 Tenn. 354; 47 S. W. 498; Citty v. Mfg. Co., 93 Tenn. 276; 42 Am. St. Rep. 919; 24 S. W. 121.

16 Wiseman v. Thompson, 94 la. 607; 63 N. W. 346; Marr v. Ry., 121 la. 117; 96 N. W. 716.

17 Burt v. Wilson, 28 Cal. 632; 87 Am. Dec. 142; Wright v. Raftree, 181 111. 464; 54 N. E. 998; Thomas v. Churchill, 48 Neb. 266; 67 N. W. 182; Ashmore v. Evans, 11 N. J. Eq. 151.

18 Wright v. Raftree, 181 111. 464; 54 N. E. 998.

19Battell v. Matot, 58 Vt. 271; 5 Atl. 479.