
    BEAN’S APPEAL.
    The Orphans’ Conrt will not set aside an administrator’s sale of real estate, for payment of debts, upon the application of decedent’s son who alleges a parol sale to himself during his father’s life time.
    An Orphans’ Court sale of real estate for payment of debts will not affect the title of one who claims to have made a parol purchase during decedent’s life time.
    Appeal from the Orphans’ Court of Montgomery County. No. 192 July Term, 1883. .
    Arnold Bean owned a small farm in Lower Providence Township, Montgomery County, Penna. After his death, there was a petition presented to the Court, by the administrator, for an order to sell this property, for payment of debts. The Court made the order prayed for. It was to be put up for sale by auction, and John IL Bean bid it up to $3,000. William Detwiler bid $3,050. It was not struck down, but afterwards, on a consultation with the widow and heirs, it was agreed that John IL Bean should have the property for $3,000. He did not complete the arrangement, and the property was put up for sale a second time. At this second sale, the bidding was between John K. Bean and William Detwiler, who bid against each other, until the property was finally struck down to William Detwiler for ^8,060. John IL Bean then filed exceptions to the order of the •*ale,-and to the confirmation of the sale, alleging, that during his father’s life time he had entered into a parol contract for the purchase of the farm from his father, and had taken possession of the property and had made improvements, and that the sale was so far completed, that it would be unjust to rescind the same. The Court, however, declined to set aside the sale, after testimony had been taken, and John IL Bean appealed to the Supreme Court, complaining of the action of the Court below in confirming the sale.
    
      George N. Corson, Esq., for appellant,
    argued that Detweiler could proceed by summary process to oust John IL Bean from his possession, and hence it will prejudice his title. John K. Bean has a complete title in law and equity, for equity is part of the law in Penna.; Pollard vs. Shaaffer, 1 Dallas 210; Jordan vs. Cooper, 3 S. & R. 564 ; Funk vs. Voneida, 11 S. & R. 109; Hawthorn vs. Bronson, 16 S. & E. 269; Hauberger vs. Root, 5 Penna. 108; Church vs. Ruland, 64 Penna. 432; and. Courts of law may enforce equity, without regard to the forms of pleading ; Loan Co. vs. Elliott, 15 Penna. 224; Hawthorn vs. Bronson, 16 S. & R. 269. John K. Bean ought not to be put out of possession. He ought to have the right, being the owner, to remain in and test his title by defence. Parol contracts for valuable consideration, respecting the sale of land, have always been valid as a contract in Penna; Cunningham vs. Patton, 6 Pa. 358. This Court, being a Court of Equity, will make just such a decree, as it would make in the Common Pleas upon bill in equity filed; Porter vs. Dougherty, 25 Penna. 405; Cobb vs. Burns, 61 Penna. 278. If Bean should not object and protest, he would be estopped from asserting his claim or title hereafter ; Wood vs. Wilson, 1 Wr. 380.
    
      Franklin March, Esq.
    
    argued that the alleged parol contract was void, unless the appellant would show by direct, positive, express and unambiguous evidence, that he has fulfilled certain requisites, which would take'it out of the purview of the statute of frauds and perjuries. Proof of the parol contract, obtaining possession pursuant thereto, payment of the purchase money, and making valuable improvements, and the performance of the contract, should be so distinct that a chancellor would know how to enforce it, and should be complied with by the party seeking performance; Milliken vs. Dravo, 67 Penna. 230; Dougan vs. Blocher, 24 Penna. 28; Hart vs. Carroll, 85 Penna. 508; Detrick vs. Sharrar, 95 Penna. 525; Woods vs. Farmare, 10 W. 195. It is only where there has been such part performance as cannot be reasonably compensated in damages, that a case is excepted from the statute of frauds; Postlethwait vs. Frease, 31 Pa. 472; Moore vs. Small, 19 Penna. 469 ; Ballard vs. Ward, 89 Penna. 358. There must be proof of an expenditure for improvements, not reimbursed by profits derived irom the occupation of the land, and not capable of compensation in damages recoverable in an action for the breach of the contract; Wack vs. Sorber, 2 Wh. 387; McKowen vs. McDonald, 43 Penna. 441; Greenlee vs. Greenlee, 22 Penna. 225. The evidence of a parol gift or sale must be direct, positive, express and unambiguous; Poorman vs. Kilgore, 26 Penna. 356; McCue vs. Johnston, 25 Penna. 306. •The acts of John X. Bean were such as to amount to a rescission of tlie alleged parol contract, and to warrant the heirs of Arnold Bean in selling the property at the Orphans’ Court sale ; Lauer vs. Lee, 42 Penna. 165; Grove vs. Donaldson, 15 Penna. 128. In Kline’s Appeal, 39 Penna. 463, it is decided, that no one can object to the confirmation of a sale for the payment of debts, who claims an adverse interest in the land. All that was sold here was the estate of Arnold Bean, and being a judicial sale, the rule of Caveat Emptor applies; Diehl’s Appeal, 33 Penna. 406. The title of John K. Bean, if he had any, is unaffected by the sale, and the purchaser takes the same share, which the decedent had in the land.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the Orphans’ Court on the 12th May, 1884, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam.

The appellant seeks to prevent the confirmation of a sale of real estate made by the administrator of Arnold Bean, deceased, in pursuance of an order of the Orphans’ Court. He claims to have purchased it from his father, Arnold Bean, by parol during the life of the latter. He, however, admits that $2,000 of the sum which he agreed to pay therefor, remains unpaid. The legal . title remaining in the decedent at the time of his death with the purchase money unpaid, there ivas an estate of that value, subject to sale by the administrator of the decedent for the payment of debts. It further appears that the appellant knew of the intended administrator’s sale and expected to become the purchaser at that sale for a sum less than the amount for which il was sold. His disappointed expectations induce him to now claim that the sale was a fraud on him. If, however, his active participation in the sale was not of such a character as to estop him from denying that the whole title passed to the purchaser, his rights, if any, in the land are not destroyed by this sale. The evidence, however, of his prior parol purchase is so weak, both as to the making of the eonvraet and of such improvements that were not recompensed by profits derived from the land, that the appellant is in no condition to object to the'sale amad© iby the administrator of his father, for the payment ■of debts, in pursuance of an order of the Orphans’ Court. In -view of all the facts in the case the Court committed no error in -dismissing the exceptions and in confirming the sale.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.  