
    Henry G. Clark vs. Edwin M. Chamberlin.
    A memorandum of sale of land which simply describes the land sold as lots No. 1 and 2, without making reference to any plan or writing by which the premises can be identified, is not a sufficient memorandum under the Statute of Frauds.
    Contract for the breach of an agreement for the purchase of land. Among other defences the Statute of Frauds was relied upon. The case was tried in the Superior Court, before Devens, J., without a jury, who, upon the facts as found by him, reported the case for the determination of this court.
    The facts, so far as they were material to decision, were as follows : The plaintiff, being the owner of certain land in Brookline,advertised and offered it for sale by auction. Prior to the sale, the auctioneer exhibited to the defendant an old plan, and made an oral statement to him that the lots marked 17 and 18 thereon would be divided into three lots of equal frontage on the street, and that the division lmes wax-d run back straight to the rear of the lots. The auctioneer then went upon the land with the defendant and others who were present, and made an oral statement that it would be divided into three lots of equal frontage on the street, .and that the division line would run perpendicularly to Freeman Street, to the' rear of the lots, and that the first lot sold would be the one adjoining the Babcock line, and pointed out and orally described the lots to him, so that they were understood by him, but did not expressly state what the frontage or area would be. He then made an announcement of the terms and conditions of the sale by reading them, and first offered for sale the lot adjoining the Babcock line, with the privilege of taking the three, and struck it off to the defendant, and then the lot next the first was put up, and both were bid off by the defendant at the prices stated in the declaration. The defendant signed a memorandum, a copy of which is as follows:
    “We, whose names are hereto appended, hereby acknowledge ourselves the purchasers of the lot or lots of land situated on Freeman Street in Brookline, and sold at auction, July 13th, 1870, at 3| o’clock P. M. Namely: the lot or lots of lands against which we have recorded our respective names, and at the prices recorded by the auctioneer; said lots being more particularly described in the advertisement hereto appended. And we hereby bind ourselves, our heirs and assigns, to comply with the terms and conditions of the sale, as declared by S. A. Walker, the auctioneer, at the time and place of sale.
    
      
    
    The advertisement appended to this memorandum was as follows :
    “By Samuel A. Walker, (Office No. 15 Central Street.) This day. 6 Splendid House Lots in Brookline. On Wednesday, July 13, at 3|- o’clock p. M.
    “ Will be sold six splendid house lots situated on Freeman Street, in the beautiful town of Brookline, containing from 6500 to 13,000 feet of land each. They are embellished with choice fruit trees, and on high grounds, commanding a magnificent view of Boston and the neighboring cities and towns. The locality is unsurpassed, and the neighborhood highly respectable. Gas pipes are laid through Freeman Street, which connects with Pleasant Street and Babcock Avenue, and the Allston and Cottage Farm Stations on the Boston and Albany Railroad, and the Chapel and Longwood Stations on the Brookline Branch are but a short distance from the premises. These lots adjoin the Crowninshield and Babcock estates, and are superior to most house lots within ten miles of Boston. These lots have been planted with beautiful trees by the present owner, and were purchased for his own private use, but having made other arrangements, they will be offered to the highest bidder.
    “ Those wishing to secure a splendid building lot should certainly attend this sale. Terms liberal — $50 to be paid on each lot upon the spot. Further particulars of the auctioneer.”
    If the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the action the case was to be referred to an assessor to be appointed by the court, otherwise judgment was to be entered for the defendant.
    
      O. P. Judd, for the plaintiff.
    
      Gr. W. Pstabrooh, for the defendant, was not called upon.
   Morton, J.

The insuperable difficulty in the plaintiff’s case is, that the memorandum in writing does not contain a description of the premises sold sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. It describes the land sold as lots Ho. 1 and 2, but no plan is referred to, and none existed, fixing the location or limits of the lots. It does not in itself, or by reference to other writings, contain the means of identifying the premises. Whelan v. Sullivan, 102 Mass. 204.

It shows that the defendant agreed to purchase a part of a large tract of land owned by the plaintiff, but furnishes no means of determining what or how large a part.

Judgment for the defendant.  