-A contract for the sale of land which is not in writing and therefore does not comply with the statute of frauds is absolutely void and cannot be used for a basis for measuring damages or for any other purpose.64 In harmony with this principle the courts have held that expenses incurred in carrypaid seventy-five dollars down and the plaintiff gave him the following receipt:

"Wyandotte, April 26, 1881. Received from George Stormont the sum of seventy five dollars as part of the principal of ten hundred and fifty dollars on sale of my house and two lots on corner of Superior and Second streets in this city. David Gault. Witness: C. W. Thomas."

The understanding was that plaintiff was to return home and have a deed executed by himself and his wife, on receipt of which the defendant would pay the balance of the purchase price. Defendant was also to be allowed to go into possession of the premises whenever the tenant then in possession would permit him to do so. The wife of the plaintiff refused to unite with him in the deed and upon his failure to obtain his wife's signature to the deed, the plaintiff through his agent tendered back to the defendant the $75 which had been paid down. The defendant refused to accept this return. Meanwhile the defendant had obtained possession of the premises from the tenant and refused to vacate when the plaintiff failed to complete the agreement. The plaintiff brought this action to recover possession of the premises.

The court held that there was no written evidence of the sale of the lots except the receipt for the seventy-five dollars, and that was clearly insufficient to answer the requirements of the statute of frauds; for though it specified the purchase price, it failed to express the time or times of payment. A memorandum to be sufficient under the statute must be complete in itself and leave nothing to rest in parol.

Maynard v. Brown, 41 Mich. 298. Plaintiff filed a bill to compel the defendant to pay the amount which they had agreed upon as the purchase price of certain lands owned by the plaintiff. The written memorandum relating to the agreement was not signed by the plaintiff.

The court held that this contract was void under the statute of frauds because not signed by the party by whom the sale was to be made. A written agreement to convey real estate must be signed by the party by whom the sale is to be made, in order to comply with the requirements of the statute of frauds.

54. Sutton v. Rowley, holding that an unwritten agreement to pay for work by giving a conveyance of land is void under the statute of frauds and cannot be considered as measuring damages or for any other purpose. See also, Abel v. Munson, 18 Mich. 306.

ing out a void verbal agreement cannot be recovered,55 and a promise made in consideration of a void verbal agreement to convey land is therefore without legal consideration and cannot be enforced 56 where money has been paid, however, as part of the purchase price upon a verbal agreement for the purchase of land if possession has not been given and there has been no part performance, such purchase money may be recovered on theory that there is no consideration therefor, the contract of purchase being void,57 and this same principle applies even though the agreement that the money advanced should be forfeited in case of failure to purchase as such a forfeiture clause is but a part of the same contract and since the entire contract was void it created no obligation.58 Not

55. Taylor v. Boardman, 24 Mich. 387, holding that a verbal contract promising to purchase land is void.

56. Rhea v. Myers Est., 1ll Mich. 140.

57. Scott v. Bush, 26 Mich. 418, holding that money paid under a verbal agreement to purchase land may be recovered back for the reason that the agreement is void under the statutes. Scott v. Bush, 29 Mich. 523, holding that money advanced under a verbal agreement to purchase land may be recovered back nothwithstanding that it was part of the agreement that money advanced should be forfeited in case of failure to purchase.

58. Doane v. Feathers Est., 119 Mich. 691. Generally on the subject of void contracts. See Nime v. Sherman, 43 Mich. 45, affirming and following the rule of Scott v. Bush, supra, Gault v. Stormont, 51 Mich. 636, holding that a memorandum of a sale of land contained in a receipt for part of the purchase price is void unless complete in itself and leaves nothing to be proved by parol evidence.

See also Raub v. Smith, 61 Mich. 543, holding that a contract for the formation of a partnership for the purchase of land for his business is void and cannot be used for any purpose.

See also, Wardell v. Williams, 62 Mich. 50, holding that a written offer to sell land framed in such terms as to make further negotiations between the parties necessary was not sufficiently complete in itself as to enable the purchaser to consummate the contract by accepting the offer.

See also Brosman v. McGee, 63 Mich. 454, holding that an oral agreement whereby the plaintiff was to purchase certain lands on joint account of himself and defendant was of no effect for any purpose.

See also, Ball v. Harpham, 140 Mich. 661, holding that a verbal executory agreement to purchase land subject to the back taxes thereon is void under the statute of frauds.

See also Ebert v. Cullen, 165 Mich. 75, holding that a memorandum of a sale of land showing only is a verbal contract for the sale or purchase of land void, but a verbal agreement by one to purchase an interest in land for another is also void,59 while the statement has been repeatedly made in various cases that a verbal contract for the sale of real estate is void for all purposes, nevertheless there is a line of cases holding that where a verbal agreement has been made to convey land in consideration of personal services such contract may be considered as estimating the value of services in an action to recover therefor, although there has been no acts of part performance by the promisor.60