A memorandum to be sufficient under the statute must be complete in itself and must leave nothing to rest in parol.42

(1/2) of the northwest quarter (1/4) except eighteen (18) acres off southwest corner; also the northwest corner of the west half (1/2) of the southeast quarter (1/4) lying north of property of Michigan Central R. R. Co. "all of Section twenty, Town four, North Range eleven East, Michigan."

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court granting the relief prayed for in the bill of complaint and on page 416 used the following language:

"It is apparent that when the deed was executed and delivered by the grantor it contained no complete description of land. The words, "Lying north of property of Michigan Central R. R. Co." are the only words employed which can by any possibility aid the description. And these words, in the light of certain testimony which was admitted, are found to afford no real aid because the railroad company had at least a right of way in seven sections in Oakland township. Other testimony, admitted without objection, and not disputed, tended to prove that Alice Smith owned land, otherwise corresponding with the description in the deed, in section 20 in said township, and owned no other land in the township; defendants say that this testimony, having come in without objection, may be properly used to determine what land was intended to be conveyed and to sustain the deed. We think this is not so."

In the case of Groppers v. Marshall, 206 Michigan, page 560, in an action brought to recover damages for a breach of written contract the court held that the following description of the premises was too ambiguous, uncertain and indefinite to form the basis of action for damages.

"All that certain piece or parcel of land situate in the Township of Byron, in the County of Kent and State of Michigan, described as follows, viz: "The east half of the southeast quarter and the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter, less one acre (E. 1/2 S. E. 14 and S. E. 1/4 of N. E. 1/4 less 1 A.) of township five north of range twelve west, containing one hundred nineteen acres of land, more or less, according to the government survey thereof;'.'

40. Where the contract simply specified "Interest 5%, Easy Terms," held too indefinite to satisfy statute of frauds. Hildberg v. Green, 172 Mich. 505; Gault v. Stormont, 51 Mich. 636; Adler v. Katus, 190 Mich. 86. See collection of cases note 15 of this section.

41. See Webster v. Brown, 67 Mich. 328.

42. See cases collected in note 53 supra.

If the memorandum fails to name the consideration or purchase price, or to state the time of performance,43 or if the time when payment is to be made is not stated,44 or if the memorandum is not complete in itself without resorting to parol evidence,45 or if it fails to name the parties, or naming them, only one signs the agreement, where two purport to effect the sale,46 or if the contract purports to be made by an agent or indicates on its face that it is so made, and the agent instead of the principal signs same,47 in all the foregoing instances the contract is within the statute of frauds and unenforceable.

In the absence of fraud or mistake where a preliminary land contract is complete in itself, it is error for the trial court to admit oral evidence contradicting its provisions to the effect that it did not contain the agreements of the parties.48

If the written contract itself is void by reason of falling within the statute, and the party seeking relief can establish the agreement by parol evidence free from doubt and ambiguity, which agreement followed by part performance, sufficient to take the case out of the statute the contract will be upheld.49

In construing the provisions of a land contract, a construction is to be preferred, which will render it valid rather than void.50

Where the preliminary agreement has been lost, parol evidence is admissible as to its contents.51

For a more detailed examination of the Michigan cases, disclosing what contracts the courts have held to be a sufficient

43. Rosenbaum v. T. Tyszka, 192 Mich. 457. Where the consideration is not named, nor the time of performance.

Tattan v. Bryant, 198 Mich. 515. Where the consideration was not stated.

44. Nichols v. Buchanan, 177 Mich. 601.

45. Ebert v. Cullen, 165 Mich. 75.

46. Adler v. Katus, 190 Mich. 86.

47. Shipman v. Campbell, 79 Mich. 82.

48. Ogooshevits v. Sampson, 211 Mich. 180; Smith v. Mathis, 174 Mich. 262; Ogooshevits v. Arnold, 197 Mich. 204; Walsh v. Oakman, 199 Mich. 688.

49. Lyle v. Munsen, 213 Mich. 250.

50. Stamp v. Steel, 209 Mich. 205-210; Anderson v. Baughman, 7 Mich. 69-74, Am. Dec. 699; Morse v. Hewett, 28 Mich. 481.

51. Bignell v. Franks, 212 Mich. 319.

compliance with the statute and what have been held insufficient, the reader is referred to the note accompanying this section where the Michigan cases have been collected and the particular contract passed upon by the courts is either abstracted or set out. We have grouped the cases in which the courts have held the agreements sufficient,52 and in another

Preliminary Agreements For The Conveyance Of Land Held Sufficient

52. Under this section we have abstracted the following cases all holding the memorandum sufficient:

Gannon v. Slansfield, 216 Mich. 441; Bailer v. Spivack, 213 Mich. 436; Lyle v. Munson, 213 Mich. 250; Ogooshevitz v. Sampson, 211 Mich. 184; Stamp v. Steele, 209 Mich. 205; Ogooshevitz v. Arnold, 197 Mich. 204; Nowicki v. Kopel-czak, 195 Mich. 678; Brin v. Michalski, 188 Mich. 400; Bushman v. Faltis, 184 Mich. 172; Hilberg v. Creer, 172 Mich. 505; Goldberg v. Drake, 145 Mich. 50; Huron Land Co. v. Robarge, 128 Mich. 686; Mull v. Smith, 132 Mich. 618; Garvey v. Pankhurst, 127 Mich. 370; Bawden v. Hunt, 123 Mich. 296; Austin v. Dolbee, 101 Mich. 292; Munro v. Edwards, 86 Mich. 91; Lambert v. Weber, 83 Mich. 395; Francis v. Barry, 69 Mich. 311; Crooks v. Whitford, 47 Mich. 286; Eggleston v. Wagner, 46 Mich. 610; Wiley v. Lovely, 46 Mich. 83; Slaver v. Breese, 36 Mich. 77; Anderson v. Baughman, 7 Mich. 69; Bailer v. Spivack, 213 Mich. 436.