
    Downey v. Hotchkiss.
    In the Court below,
    Mesas Hotchkiss, Petitioner ; James Downey, Lois his wife, and John Nichols, Respondents,
    
    X HIS was a petition in chancery, stating, that the petitioner had agreed with Downey and his wife for one half of a grist-mill belonging to her; that they had given him possession ; that he had since paid part of the purchase money, and made extensive repairs ; and that Nichols, knowing these facts, had afterwards prevailed upon Downey and his wife to execute a conveyance of the premises to him. The relief prayed for was, that Downey and his wife should be compelled to give the petitioner a deed in pursuance of their agreement, and that Nichols should be enjoined not to make any use of his. The Court found the facts as stated, and decreed in favour of the petitioner.
    In adopting the English statute of frauds and perjuries, our legislature adopted the construction given to it by theling-lish courts. A parol contract, therefore, regarding real estate, executed in part, will be enforced by our courts.
    Whether the specific execution of an agreement of husband and wife, concerning her land,can be enforced in chancery against her ?
    
    On the hearing of the case, the Court permitted the petitioner to prove tire agreement between him and Dow-ney and his wife, by parol. The respondents having objected to the admission of such evidence, on the ground that it was in contravention of the statute of frauds and perjuries, filed their bill of exceptions,
    Edwards, (of New-Haven,) and Staples for the plaintiffs in error,
    contended,
    1. That part performance, in this State, vyould not take a case out of the statute.
    2. That a specific performance of an agreement of husband and wife, concerning her land, could not be enforced in chancery, against her.
    
    
      The first point they considered as res nova before this Court; and went into a full examination of the rules of construction, and the various considerations of policy, as applicable to the statute in question.
    On the second point, they contended, that chancery W'ould hot interfere to compel a specific execution, except where a court of law, provided the contract could be proved, •would give damages for non-performance. Dourney’s wife would clearly not be liable in an action at law.
    Baldwin, and Smith, (of New-Haven,) for the defendant in error,
    contended,
    1. That as to the construction of the statute, they were not bound to recur to first principles, the construction of the Court below, in this case, having been long settled in England, when our legislature adopted the statute.
    2. That the same law, which authorizes the contract of a feme-covert, will compel her to fulfil it. At any rate, this bill ought to be supported as against the husband, to compel him to make the petitioner a title, and as against Nichols, for the purpose of an injunction against his deed.
   By the Court,

unanimously,

The judgment was affirmed.  