The cases are generally to the effect that an oral gift of land, if followed by the making of substantial improvements by the donee on the strength thereof, will be recognized and enforced by a court of equity.83 In some of these cases it appears that the court construed the lan82. See notes in 8 Columbia Law Rev. at p. 273, 21 Id. at p. 292, 30 Id. 769.

83. Neale v. Neale, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 1, 19 L. Ed. 590; Burris v. J.anders, 114 Cal. 310, 46 Pac. 162; Kinsell v. Thomas, 18 Cal. App. 683, 124 Pac. 220; Hunt v. Hayt, 10 Colo. 278, 15 Pac. 410; Howell v. Ellsberry, 79 Ga. 475, 5 S. E. 96: Garbutt v. Mayo, 128 Ga. 269, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 58. 57 S. E. 495; Drum v. Stevens, 94 Ind. 181 (but see Winslow v. Winslow, 52 Ind. 8); Bevington v. Bevington, 133 Iowa, 351, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 508. 12 Ann. Cas. 490. 110 N. W. 840; Dyer v. School Dist. No. 1ll of Sedgwick County. 76 Kan. 889, 92 Pac. 1122; Bige-low v. Bigelow, 93 Me. 439, 45 Atl. 513, 95 Me., 17, 49 Atl. 49; Polk v. Clark, 92 Md. 372, 48 Atl. 67; Whitaker v. Mcdaniel, 113 Md 388, 78 Atl. 1; Trebesch v. Trebesch, 130 Minn. 368, 153 N. W. 754; Maas v. Anchor Fire Ins. Co. of Cincinnati, 148 Mich. 432, 111 N. W. 1044; Dozier v. Matson, 94 Mo. 328, 4 Am. St.

Rep. 388, 7 S. W. 268; Story v. Black, 5 Mont. 26, 51 Am. Rep. 37, 1 Pac. 1; Merriman v. Merri-man, 75 Neb. 222, 166 N. W. 174; Seavey v. Drake, 62 N. H. 393; Freeman v. Freeman, 43 N. Y. 34, 3 Am. Rep. 657; Messiah Home v. Rogers, 212 N. Y. 315, 106 N. E. 59; Thayer v .Thayer, 69 Ore. 138, 138 Pac. 478; Syler's Lessee v. Eckert, 1 Binn. (Pa.) 378; Burns v. Sutherland, 7 Pa. 103; Cook v. Cook, 24 S. D. 223, 123 N. W. 693; Wool-ridge v. Hancock, 70 Tex. 18, 6 S. W. 818; Cooke v. Young, 2 Utah, 254; Burkholder v. Ludlan, 30 Gratt. (Va.) 255, 32 Am. Rep. 668; Halsey v. Peters, 79 Va. 60; Coleman v. Larson, 49 Wash. 321, 95 Pac. 262; Crim v. England, 46 W. Va. 480. 76 Am. St. Rep. 826. 33 S. E 310; Dillwyn v. Llewellyn, 4 De G. F. & J. 517 (semble); See 1 White & Tudor's Ldg. Cas. in Eq. (4th Am. Ed.) p. 1047; Pomeroy, Equitable Remedies, Sec. 828; Editorial notes, 15 Harv. Rev. at p. 659; 13 Columbia Law Rev. at p. 151; 26 Yale Law guage used by the donor as in effect an offer to convey the land to the so-called donee on condition that he would make improvements, which offer was accepted by the making of improvements, giving rise to a con tract to convey the land,84 but more usually the decision is based upon the theory that, after the owner of land has induced another to make substantial expenditures thereon by purporting to give him the land, a withdrawal of such gift would, although no contract is created, in effect operate as a fraud upon the donee, which equity will interfere to prevent by requiring the execution of a conveyance in accordance with the in tended gift. In applying this doctrine the courts perhaps ordinarily refer to it as a case of specific performance, stating that the making of improvements constitutes a part performance sufficient to take the transaction out of the Statute of Frauds. The expressions "part performance" and "specific performance, however, appear to be particularly inappropriate as applied to an attempted conveyance, as distinguished from a contract, and the doctrine may, it is conceived, be more satisfactorily regarded as involving an application, or perhaps extension, of the principle of estoppel in pais.

Journ. 592; article by Professor Roscoe Pound, 13 Illinois Law ' Rev. at p. 672.

In occasional comparatively early decisions the oral donee was restricted to a right to recover the value of his improvements. Evans v. Battle, 19 Ala. 398; Runker v. Abele, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 566. See also Tolleson v Blackstock, 95 Ala. 510, 11 So. 284. Relief to the oral donee was denied in Adamson v. Lamb

3 Blackf. (Ind.) 446; Ridley v. Mcnain. 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 174.

84. Gwynn v. Mccauley, 32 Ark. 97; Gaines v. Kendall, 176 111. 228, 52 L. R. A. 277, 58 N. E. 598; Harlan v. Harlan, 273 111. 155, 112 N. E. 452; Haines v. Haines, 6 Md. 435; Seavey v. Drake, 62 N. H. 393; Young v. Overbaugh, 145 N. Y. 158, 39 N. E. 712; Greenwood v. School District, 126 Mich. 81, 85 N. W. 241.

2 R. P. - 60