§ 269 a. Parol reservations, by which it is attempted to except from the operation of a deed some interest in the realty conveyed by it, are inoperative by the Statute of Frauds.4

§ 270. Where a deed has been actually executed or a title to the land in any way passed, agreements between the parties as to pecuniary liabilities growing out of the transaction, but not going to take any interest in land from the grantee, are not affected by the statute.5 Thus an agreement releasing damages for the taking of land for public uses,1 or for the use of it by statutory privilege, as in certain cases of flowage, is binding without writing,2 and so, manifestly, is any special agreement to pay the price of land previously conveyed.3

1 Ante, § 75. See also Lindsay v. Jaffray, 55 Texas 626.

2 Bostwick v. Leach, 3 Day (Conn.) 476; Leinau v. Smart, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 308; Fleming v. Ramsey, 46 Pa. St. 252. But an agreement to open a street adjacent to the promisor's land has been held to be within the statute. Richter v. Irwin, 28 Ind. 26. So an agreement not to build within three feet of the street. Wolfe v. Frost, 4 Sandf. (N. Y.) Ch. 72; and see Rice v. Roberts, 24 Wisc. 461; Hall v. Solomon, 61 Conn. 476. An agreement for the use of a dry dock, held not an agreement for an interest in land in Wells v. Mayor, L. R. 10 C. P. 402.

3 Preble v. Baldwin, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 549; Brackett v. Evans, 1 Cush. (Mass.) 79. See McCormick v. Cheevers, 124 Mass. 262. A verbal substitution of appraisers of the value of land for those originally appointed by writing, is not a contract for any interest in the land. Stark v. Wilson, 3 Bibb (Ky.) 476.

4 Leonard v. Clough, 133 N. Y. 292; Armstrong v. Lawson, 73 Indiana 498; Kerr v. Hill, 27 W. Va. 576. Growing crops may be so reserved Thompson v. Tilton, 34 N. J. Eq. 306. See ante, § 256.

5 McCabe v. Fitzpatrick, 2 Leg. Gaz. 138; McOuat v. Cathcart, 84 Ind. 567; Turpie v. Lowe, 114 Ind. 37.

§ 271. A contract for the sale or purchase of land is within the statute, though no price be paid in money. A verbal agreement for an exchange of lands, we have seen in a former chapter, was not binding;4 and the same is undoubtedly true when the price of the proposed conveyance is to consist of labor or services of any kind, or, generally, of whatever the law would regard as a good consideration.5

1 Embury v. Conner, 3 N. Y. 511; Fuller v. Plymouth Commissioners, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 81.

2 Fitch v. Seymour, 9 Met. (Mass ) 462; Smith v. Goulding, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 154; Clement c. Durgin, 5 Greenl. (Me.) 14. But when the statute authorizing the taking of the land contemplates a contract -with the owner, this contract must be in writing. Phillips v. Thompson, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) Ch. 131.

3 Qucere, if an agreement to discount for so much as a piece of land granted shall fall short of the amount named in the deed is affected by the statute. It has been determined both ways in early Connecticut cases. Mott v. Hurd, 1 Root, 73; Bradley v. Blodget, Kirby, 22. The former of these cases, however, was referred to as law by the Supreme Court of Indiana in Green v. Vardiman, 2 Blackf. 324. See also Dyer v. Graves, 37 Vt. 369; and Metcalf- v. Putnam, 9 Allen (Mass.) 100. An agreement to pay an increased price for land if coal were found in it, has been held void by the statute in Virginia. Heth v. Wooldridge, 6 Rand. 605. See also Garret v. Malone, 8 Rich. (S C) Law, 335; Howe v. O'Mally, 1 Murph. (N. C.) 287; Fraser v. Child, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 153; Sherrill v Hagan, 92 N. C 345.

4 Ante, § 76; Purcell v. Miner, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 513.

5 Burlingame v. Burlingame, 7 Cowen (N. Y.) 92; Jack v. McKee, 9 Pa. St. 235; Helm v. Logan. 4 Bibb (Ky.) 78; Baxter v. Kitch, 37 Ind. 554; Dowling v. McKenney, 124 Mass. 478; Slocum v. Wooley, 43 N. J. Eq. 451. See post, § 293.