Hudspeth v. Thomas

This appeal questions the chancellor’s refusal to order specific performance of an alleged oral contract for the sale of ninety-eight acres of land. The appellant asserted in his complaint that on April 12, 1942, he agreed to buy thé property from the appellee, his father-in-law, for $4,000. He relies on the taking of possession and the making of improvements to take the case out of the statute of frauds.

Appellant’s argument is based on the contention that when the purchaser under an oral contract shows that he has been in possession, the statute of frauds passes out of the picture and proof…