Cited by

Application of the doctrine in some cases has been explained by the extreme hardship which would result if the statute were applied (Brown v. Hoag, 35 Minn. 373 , ; Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , ); while in others the court has felt that the policy behind the statute was adequately protected if acts of performance unequivocally referable to the contract were shown (Shaughnessy v. Eidsmo, 222 Minn. 141 , 23 N. W. [2d] 362, 166 A. L. R. 435).

7 See, Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , ; Jorgenson v. Jorgenson, 81 Minn. 428 , ; Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , ; Trebesch v. Trebeseh, 130 Minn. 368 , ; Chapel v. Chapel, 132 Minn. 86 , ; Happel v. Happel, 184 Minn. 377 , .

Thus, in Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197, 200 , , a case in which the facts were in many respects similar to those here presented, the court said: “The principle that must control the decision of the question is stated (in accordance with all the authorities) in Brown v. Hoag, *615 35 Minn. 373 , ( 29 N. W. Rep.

allowed to' alter his situation on the faith of an oral agreement within the statute, to such an extent that it would be a fraud on the part of the other party to set up its invalidity, equity will make the case an exception to the statute.’ That is, equity will not permit the statute, the purpose of which was to prevent fraud, to be used as a means of committing it.” Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197, 200 , , 118.

See also Drager v. Seegert, 138 Minn. 6 , ; Snow v. Snow, 98 Minn. 348 , ; Hayes v. Hayes, 126 Minn. 389 , .” To these may be added Trebesch v. Trebesch, 130 Minn. 368 , , and the earlier decisions in Brown v. Hoag, 35 Minn. 373 , ; Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , ; Schmitt v. Schmitt, 94 Minn. 414 , .

Co. v. La Du, 36 Minn. 473 , ; Kriger v. Leppel, 42 Minn. 6 , ; Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , ; Spinney v. Hill, 81 Minn. 316 , .

Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , ; Svanburg v. Fosseen, 75 Minn. 350 , , 43 L.R.A.

Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , ; Schmitt v. Schmitt, 94 Minn. 414 , .

The principle applied in *477 Williams v. Stewart, supra, is further elucidated in the cases of Brown v. Hoag, 35 Minn. 373 , , Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , , Jorgenson v. Jorgenson, 81 Minn. 428 , , Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , , and Paine v. Wilcox, 16 Wis.

Brown v. Hoag, supra; Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , ; Thomas v. Rogers, 108 Minn. 132 , , 133 Am.

Place v. Johnson, 20 Minn. 198 (219) ; Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 ; Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , ; Brown v. Hoag, 35 Minn. 373 , ; Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , .

In Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , , the father agreed to convey certain land to his son, provided he should dismiss certain actions then pending against the father, and consent that certain money dependent upon the result be paid to the father.

Brown v. Hoag, 35 Minn. 373 , ; Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , , 46 Minn. 100 , .

The general rule is followed and applied in Atkins v. Little, 17 Minn. 320 (342); Place v. Johnson, 20 Minn. 198 (219); Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 ; Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , ; Svanburg v. Fosseen, 75 Minn. 350 , .

P. R. Co., 23 Minn. 343 , Brown v. Hoag, 35 Minn. 373 , , and Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , , in which many cases are considered, and Mournin v. Trainor, 63 Minn. 230 , .

In the case of Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , , in an action to compel specific performance for conveyance of land, the plaintiff was never in the possession of the land, and never made any improvements thereon.

The report of the case on the former appeal found in 39 Minn. 197 , ( 39 N. W. Rep.