
    Peifer against Landis.
    Part performance of a parol contract for the sale of land is essential to its validity.
    THIS was an action of ejectment in the circuit court of Dauphin county, tried by Justice Rogers, in which John Peifer and Sarah his wife were plaintiffs, and Christian Landis and others were defendants.
    ' The plaintiffs claimed the land by virtue of a parol contract, entered into between George Bower, and Sarah Bower the wife of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs to maintain the issue on their part, offered to prove, that George Bower, with whom the contract was made, lived in Derry township, Dauphin county, and in the fall of 1825 or spring of 1826, requested the brother of Sarah Bower, one of the plaintiffs, to send said Sarah Bower, who lived in Franklin county, to his house to live with him and take care of him in his old days. That' the said Sarah refused to go, but insisted upon going with her father’s family to Ohio; but was prevailed upon finally, by a brother, to go and live with George Bower, who was her uncle. That she came to live with George Bower, ón a piece of land adjoining the land in dispute, in the fall of 1826. That after she came to his house, George Bower purchased the land in dispute, and came into his house with the deed for this land ; said he had bought this farm, and upon being asked by Sarah, why he bought it, when he had so many farms, he said, “ I bought it for you, if you will stay with me as long as I live.” That George Bower told the tenants on the land and many other persons, that ne intended to give that tract of land to Sally Bower, if she lived with him and took care of him as long as he lived ; and after his death she might do with it'whatever she pleased.' That afterwards the said Sarah Bower was going to leave George Bower, and wanted to go home, and he told her he did not want her to go away, and that if she would stay with him as long as he lived, he would give her this farm, the one in dispute ; and that, in consequence of said promise of George Bower, she remained with him, nursed him, worked for him, and served him faithfully until the day of his death. That if the said George had not made the parol promise, she would have left him at the time at which she threatened to leave him. That she then, in consideration of the promise, remained with the said George Bower, and did all his work and took care of him, in pursuance of her part of the contract, until the day of his death. That the said George made no will, nor did he comply in any manner with his part of the contract. That both plaintiffs and defendants in this suit claim under the said George 
      
      Bower, who was seised in fee, and possessed of said tract of land at the time of his death. That the said' George Bower died possessed of a very large real and personal estate, and left at the time of his death but one child ; and that the said George often told the said Sarah and his neighbours, that he would do as much for her as for his own child.
    This evidence was objected to by the defendants and rejected by the court; when the plaintiffs took a nonsuit, which they after-wards moved to take off, and which was refused, and they appealed.
    
      Jllricks and Weidman, for appellants.
   Per Curiam.

There is no pretence of parol performance here, because there is no pretence of delivery of possession in pursuance of the contract; which is essential. The evidence, therefore, was properly rejected.

Judgment affirmed.  