¶1Here was a parol •■agreement for the sale of land, which is void by the statute of frauds; and being one single and entire contract, it was void in all its parts, and for every purpose. The preparation of the deed was a mere incident to the contract, and fell with it. If the purchaser had verbally agreed wjth the seller, to this effect: “ bring the deed, and if I then choose to refuse it, and vacate the agreement, I will pay for It,” the seller might maintain an action for the price of the deed. There would then, in fact, be two agreements; one for the sale of the land, which is not binding, and the other a valid agreement in regard to the deed. It is very clear, that the signing and aclcnow*152ledging of the deed was not a part performance of the con tract, so,as to take the case out of the statute. (1 Com. Cont. 115, 116.) on
16 Johns. 151
Norris v. Lain
Decided May 15, 1819
New York Supreme Court · decided 1819-05-15
■IN ERROR, on certiorari to a Justice’s Court. The defendant in error brought an action in the Court below, against the plaintiff in error, and the following facts appeared on the trial. The parties had made a verbal agreement, by which the plaintiff below was to sell, and the defendant to purchase, a piece of land, for 1800 dollars.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1894
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1819-05-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →