casebody">

Bell v. Andrews. (a)

Statute of frauds.

Where there has been payment of the price of land, under a parol agreement for the sale of it, an action will lie to recover damages for the non-performance of such a contract. 1

This was an action on the case, to recover damages, for the breach of an agreement to sell and convey to the plaintiff, in fee-simple, a tract of land in Westmoreland county.

Hallowell, for the plaintiff,

offered parol evidence of the agreement, as stated in the declaration; of the payment of the price of the land; of the defendant’s subsequent acknowledgment of the sale and payment; and of the defendant’s refusal to execute a conveyance.

S. Levy, for the defendant,

objected to any proof of a parol agreement, for the sale of lands in fee-simple, as the act for the prevention of frauds and perjuries (1 Dali. Laws, 640 ; 1 Sm. Laws, 389), required, expressly, that all such agreements, to have the full effect, must be put in writing, and be signed by the partios, or their agents. But—

By the Court.

— The payment of the consideration-money may, certainly, be proved by parol evidence. The agreement being then executed by one of the parties, is not affected by the act of assembly;(b) and it is settled, that the English statute against frauds and perjuries was never extended to Pennsylvania. The act of assembly does not make a parol agreement for the sale of lands, void ; though it restricts the operation of the agreement, as to the acquisition of an interest in the land, and no title in fee-simple can be derived under it. But, certainly, an action will lie to recover damages for the non-performance of such an agreement. (c)

The objection to the evidence overruled.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress