-Where the parties live in widely separated localities and have been brought together for the purpose of consummating a preliminary agreement, or when for any other reason, it appears that difficulty may be experienced in securing the signatures to the land contract after the execution of the preliminary agreement, it is sometimes advisable to have the land contract executed by all the parties and deposited in escrow with some bank or trust company pending the bringing down of the abstract or the making of the payment which entitles vendee to delivery of the land contract and possession of the property.

When the foregoing course is pursued and there is more than one vendor, care should be taken to specify how among the vendors such payments shall be divided.

If the land contract is delivered in escrow properly executed, such a course may avoid the necessity of executing any preliminary agreement at all, as the supreme court has held that the deposit of deeds in escrow is a sufficient compliance with the statute of frauds.71

69. Pomeroy's Equity Jur. 2283, sec. ed. Phinizy v. Guernsey, 111 Ga. 346, 349, 78 Am. St. Rep. 207. 36 S. E. 796; Skinner & Sons v. Houghton, 92 Md. 68, 84 Am. St. Rep. 92 Md. 68, 84 Am. St. Rep. 485, 48 Atl. 85, etc., Dry Dock Co.; Skinner & Sons v. Houghton, 92 Md. 68, Am. St. Rep. 485, 48 Atl. 85, Am. St. Rep. 485, 48 Atl. 85; Reed v. Lukens, 44 Pa. St. 200, 84 Am. Dec. 425.

70. Pomeroy's Equity Jur. Sec. 2284. White v. Nutt, 1 P. Wms. 61-Coles v. Trecothick, 9 Ves. 234, 246; Kenney v. Wexhan, 6 Madd 355, 357; Jackson v. Lever, 3 Bro. C. C. 605.

71. Supple v. Wheeler, 210 Mich. 672; Thatcher v. St. Andrews Church, supra; Stevens v. Castel, 63 Mich. 117; Roup v. Roup, 136 Mich. 385; Wisconsin, etc., R. Co. v. Mc-Kenna, 139 Mich. 43; Miller v. Beardslee, 175 Mich. 414; Loomis v. Loomis, 178 Mich. 221.