INDEX. 5%

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE— Continued.

13. A Court of Chancery will not decree the specific performance of a
1 mere voluntary agreement. Shepherd vs. Shepherd, 244.

14. The Chancellor refused to decree the execution of the contract set up
in this case, because there was a want of the essential element of un-
equivocal certainty in the agreement and in the acts relied upon, as
part performance. Ib.

15. The ground upon which a court of equity decrees the specific perform-
ance of a parol agreement respecting lands, is, that in case of a clear
part performance by one party, it would be fraud in the other, to re-
fuse to perform the agreement on his part. It would be perverting
the statute from a shield against, into an instrument of, fraud. SmoM
vs. Owings, 363.
J(; See PART PERFORMANCE, 1.
STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

1. It may well be doubted whether sales made by trustees under the au-
thority of our courts of equity are within the statute of frauds. Har-
rison vs. Hanison, 331.

2. It has been repeatedly remarked by eminent judges, that the disposition,
which at one time existed to relax the statute of frauds, should be op-
posed, and that the courts should take a stand against any further en-
croachments upon its provisions. ' Beard vs. iMtthicwm, 345.

3. Where a party sels up an agreement in his bill, invalid under the statute
' of frauds, and the defendant by his answer denies the agreement, it is
jBot perhaps necessary for him to insist upon the statute as a bar, but
the complainant at the hearing must establish the agreement by written
evidence. Small vs. Owings, 363.

4. Where the consideration for a conveyance is paid by one, not a party
to the instrument, there is a. resulting trust in his favor, a trust implied
by law from the presumed intention of the parties, and the obvious jus-
tice of the case, which may be proved by parol, being excepted from
the statute of frauds. Hollis vs. Hollis, 479.

5. The weight of American authority, is, that it is sufficient to bind a sure-
ty, if his engagement to pay the debt of another is in writing, although
the consideration may not be reduced to writing. But where both the
consideration and the engagement are in writing, the surety is bound,
even according to the strict English construction of the statute of
frauds. Brooks vs. Cent et al., 523.
Set PART PERFOHMAMCE,2,3,6,9,10.
* PBA.CTICE IM CHANCERY, 29, 30.

ReiCLTING TRUST.

SUBSCRIPTION TO STOCK.

See AOBNT, 3.
SURETY.

See STATUTE op FRAOT)», 5.
SURCHARGING AND FALSIFYING ACCOUNTS.

1. Where an agreement was made to settle a claim presented to the com-
• ;. plainant in the form of a stated account, which, without examination