
    MIDDLESEX COUNTY,
    DECEMBER TERM, A. D. 1792.
    Cone v. Tracy.
    An agreement executed on one part not within the statute against frauds and perjuries.
    The consideration expressed in a deed not conclusive upon the grantor, either as to the sum or the payment.
    AguoN of the case, declaring that in’A. D. 1788 the plaintiff bargained and sold to the defendant his farm, lying in East Haddam, for £140 lawful money, which the defendant agreed to give for it, and then made and executed to the defendant a deed of said farm at the price aforesaid, and thereupon the defendant became indebted and liable to pay to the plaintiff said sum for said farm, and being so liable in consideration thereof assumed and promised, etc. Plea — 'Nonassumpsit. Issue to the jury.
    
      Tbe defendant objected against tbe plaintiff’s introducing any parol testimony to prove said contract because it was in consideration of land, etc.
   By the Court.

Tbe defendant bas got a deed of tbe plaintiff’s farm; tbe contract is executed on one part, wbicb takes it out of tbe statute made to prevent frauds and perjuries — tbe case is not witbin either tbe letter or tbe reason of tbe statute. Tbe evidence was admitted. Tbe case of Brown and wife v. Clark is in point, determined at tbe adjourned Superior Court, Hartford December A. D. 1777.  