246 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

ance, to take a parol agreement out of the statute of frauds, he
must show acts unequivocally referring to, and resulting from
that agreement, such as the party would not have done, unless
on account of that very agreement, and with a direct view to
its performance, and the agreement set up, must appear to be
the same with the one partly performed.

These principles are declared to be recognized by a series of
decisions, and in the subsequent case of Parkhwst and Van
Cortland, reported in the same book, 273, be reaffirms the doc-
trine of the previous case, and maintains it to be undoubtedly
sound.

In the case under consideration, in my opinion, those essen-
.tial elements of unequivocal certainty in the agreement, and in
the acts relied upon as part performance, are not to be found.
It certainly does not appear that the possession of the complain-
ant, Joseph Shepherd, is referrible exclusively to an agreement
between him and his mother, Mary Shepherd, for the convey-
ance of the land to him. The consideration to be paid, or
which is alleged to have been paid by him, was altogether in-
adequate, and hence, the effort to eke out that consideration by
the attempt to show that she was likewise influenced by defer-
ence to the wishes of her deceased husband. In this view,
and so far as a desire to comply with the supposed wishes of
her husband are concerned, the agreement must be regarded
as voluntary, and it is settled, that a court of chancery will not
decree the specific performance of a merely voluntary agree-
ment. Black vs. Cord, 2 Har. and Gill, 100.

The agreement in this case, if it can be supported at all,
must be supported as an agreement to sell and convey, and
such is the nature of the agreement as stated in the bill: which
alleges that his mother being anxious that he should hold and
enjoy the land in fee-simple, proposed to him, (the complainant,)
that if he would relinquish his interest in his father's personal
estate, she would sell and convey to him in fee simple, the said
land. The question, therefore, is, has the complainant made
out in the proof an agreement to sell and convey, and a part
performance of that agreement, and above all, has he estab-