"In addition thereto, the purchaser agrees to discharge, when due, all taxes and assessments and to keep property fully covered by insurance in amounts approved by the seller, said policies to be held by the seller in escrow until such time as the property has been fully paid for.

"It is understood that the purchaser is to draw all rents from and after the date of the land contract when the two thousand dollar payment has been made. Peter

Katus, Charles J. Katus, by Peter Katus.

"I do hereby agree to purchase the property above described and on the terms and conditions herein set forth. H. Adler. Aug. 15, 1915 Detroit, Michigan."

The plaintiff contends that the contract is void under the statute of frauds and that he is entitled to recover the money paid to the defendants as paid without conisder-ation; while the defendants argue that it is binding upon Peter Katus at all events and that plaintiff cannot recover.

Held: If a promise to convey the land is to be implied from this memorandum it is a joint pormise of Peter and Charles J. Katus and not of Peter Katus alone. The money is received by both and if any conveyance is implied it is a joint conveyance. This cannot be construed as a contract made by Peter alone. Since it cannot be construed as made by Peter alone and since he had no authority to sign the name of Charles, the agreement is void as to Charles, and since it is void as to Charles and not a severable agreement, the whole agreement is entirely void. Inasmuch as the contract was not sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds since it was not signed by the parties thereto, the plaintiff could not have compelled specific performnace of the defendants, therefore since the contract is void he is entitled to recover the money he paid down.

Berston v. Gilbert, 180 Mich. 638. Plaintiff sold to the defendant upon a land contract a certain lot in the City of Flint for $550. payable $3 cash and $1 per week.

Plaintiff is bringing a bill to cancel the contract because defendant is in arrears in his payments. Although the contract bore a secular date, it was as a matter of fact executed upon Sunday and all the payments that defendant made with one exception were made on Sundays. Defendant had gone into possession and erected buildings upon the premises. Plaintiff argues that by going into possession and also by making one payment on a week day the defendant has as a matter of fact created a new contract.

Held: Since the contract was executed on Sunday it was void under the statute and cannot be ratified upon a secular day. No new contract was created by any of the acts of the defendant. Whatever was done by the defendant was done in reliance upon the contract upon which the plaintiff bases this action and not upon any new contract. Since this was the case and this contract was void, the complainant's bill for cancellation which is based upon the contract must fail.

Nichols v. Burcham, 177 Mich. 601. The land involved in this case was owned by John and Albert Burcham, brothers, who were copartners dealing in lands. On May 8th, 1909, the defendants Burcham entered into an option contract with the complainant whereby plaintiff had an option to purchase the land. Plaintiff paid the $10 as required by the option contract and later, within the time of the option, bought the land on a land contract for $1000, $250 being paid down at the time of executing the agreement. Burchams are the nominal defendants, the real party defendant being one Mott Hicks.

On May 4th, 1909, or four days before the Burchams gave complainant the option, they entered into the following written agreement with defendant Hicks upon which the latter bases his claim to the land and by means of which he seeks to defeat complainant's bill praying that the Burchams be made to specifically perform their contract to convey to the plaintiff-

"Long Lake, Iosco County, Michigan, May 4, 1909. Description of land purchased by John Burcham and Albert Burcham by Mott Hicks: Beginning thirty two (32) rods north of the southeast corner of section five (5), thence west to the Little Long Lake, then west along said lake and west side of town four (4), then north to the D. & M. Ry., then to lot three (3), then east to two hundred and fifty feet (250), then north to Big Long Lake, then east down Big Long Lake to section line of section four (4), then south to the point of beginning, all lands being situated in lot thirty eight (38) of section five (5), town twenty three (23) north of range five (5), east, containing eighty three acres of land more or less. Received ten dollars ($10) to apply on purchase price of said land, purchase price being nine hundred dollars ($900). (Signed) John Burcham."

Held: The above receipt is not sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds and is not a contract, within the meaning of the statute, to con vey lands. It is deficient in that no time is specified as to when the payment of the purchase price shall be made. The defendant Hicks cannot therefore set up this agreement as a prior sale of the premises to him.

Ebert v. Cullen, 165 Mich. 75. In this case the plaintiff filed a bill to enforce specific performance of an agreement to sell certain lands. The agreement upon which the bill is predicated is as follows:

"Detroit, Mich., March 14, 1910. Received of E. L. Ebert, twenty five dollars on sale to him or principal of the 20 feet N. E. cor. Trowbridge and John R., price five hundred dollars. (Signed) Jas. H. Cullen."

Defendant argued that this alleged contract to sell, is not sufficient, under the statutes of the state to bind defendant to make the sale.

The court held that this receipt was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds. For although the purchase price is specified, the time or times of payment is not expressed. A memorandum to be sufficient under the statute must be complete in itself and leave nothing to parol.