OGDEN v. OGDEN.—1 BLAND. 265

for the four hundred and twenty acres of land he purchased of the
late James M. Lingan, never has been paid by any one; and that
the vendor's lieu for its security never has been abandoned, or in
any way extinguished, the plaintiffs must be relieved, under their
general prayer, in the most advantageous and effectual manner
authorized by the nature of their ease.

Whereupon it is decreed, that the bill of complaint as against
the absent defendants, who have not answered, be taken pro con-
fesso. Decreed, that the statement of the auditor be confirmed;
and that the defendants, on or before the 8th of June next, pay or
bring into this Court, to be paid unto the said Janet Lingan, as
administratrix of James M. Lingan, the sum of $11,924.14, with
legal interest on $5,573.33, part thereof, from the fifth day of the
present month until paid or brought in. And decreed, that upon
the failure of the said defendants to pay or bring into Court the
said sum of money as aforesaid, that then the said land and prop-
erty in the proceedings mentioned, be sold for the payment of the
same; that Louis Gassaway be and he is hereby appointed trustee
to make the said sale, &c. &c., in the usual form.

The defendants appealed from this decree, aud at June Term,
1830, the Court of Appeals reversed the decree, and dismissed the
bill of the complainants with costs, but filed no opinion. In the
case of McCormick v. Gibson, 3 6. & J. 18, the Court of Appeals
have, however, concisely stated their views of this case.

OGDEN v. OGDEN. 284

STATUTE OF FRAUDS.—AGREEMENT IN CONSIDERATION OF MARRIAGE.—MAR-

RIAGE PORTIONS.

The Statute of Frauds does not embrace mutual promises to marry, but ex-
tends only to agreements to pay marriage portions.

And in such cases according to the proper signification of the word agree-
ment; the whole, the consideration as well as the promise, must be in
writing.

If a person writes a letter promising to give a fortune with his daughter or
niece to a man if he should marry her; and, under the encouragement
of the letter, the man does marry her, he shall recover; the agreement
having been executed as far as it could be on his part: but the Court
must be satisfied, that the letter imports a concluded agreement, or
affords sufficient materials for a more formal agreement, (a)

(a) See Moale v. Buchanan, 11 G. & J. 314, note. In Albert v. Winn, 5 Md.
66, it was held that a post-nuptial settlement, reciting an ante-nuptial parol
contract, is not valid against creditors, because, as to them, it is a voluntary
conveyance.