
    No. 10,648.
    Edwin Telle vs. Jos. D. Taylor.
    Agency to acquire real estate must be shown by written evidence.
    APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Bilis, J.
    
    
      W. S. Parkerson, for Plaintiff and Appellant,
    cited: 35 An. 561; 33 An. 1035; 24 An, 209; 15 An. 483; 10 Rob. 1S3; 14 An. 44; 42 An. 160.
    
      J. Q. A. Pell owes and J. B. Rosser, Jr., for Defendant and Appellee :
    When a party interrogated on facts and articles in relation to a verbal contract to transfer real estate denies the contract, his answer can not be contradicted by parol evidence, nor is parol evidence admissible to prove such a contract. 4 An. 103; 4 La.-374; 15 An. 539; 26 An. 251.
    An agreement to purchase a tract of land taking the title in his own name, and to transfer it to plaintiff, can not be proved by parol. 4 An. 103; lOEob. 466; 30 An. 898; 32 An. 365.
    l’arol evidence is inadmissible to establish a verbal agreement to transfer real property, although a fraudulent refusal to comply with the agreement be alleged, and although theremay be a want of good faith, a species of fraud, in not performing his promise.
    When the allegation of simulation and fraud comes from one of the parties to a contract, he is bound to establish it by some written evidence, where the right to compel the transfer and conveyance of real property is assumed as a consequence of a verbal agreement. 4 La. 167; 2 La. 596; 10 Eob. 466.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bebmubez, O. J.

This is an action for the recovery of real estate, in the name of defendant, to which plaintiff claims title.

The substantial averment is that one Benton had agreed to buy the property for his account, to defendant’s knowledge; that defendant was the agent and trustee of Benton, and, through a conspiracy between them, acquired the land and holds it in his name for Benton.

Taylor filed exceptions, which were overruled. These were followed by a general denial.

Benton was not made a party, and made no appearance.

From an adverse judgment plaintiff appeals.

Interrogatories on facts and articles were propounded to establish the facts charged, but the answers of the defendant admitted no circumstance from which liability is inferrible.

Oral testimony was offered, but, on objection, it was rejected and bills were reserved.

A writing purporting to show an agreement between counsel for plaintiff and Benton, to pay for the running of lines by an engineer, so as to divide the property in dispute, is in the record.

There was some proof administered tending to show matters which have little or no reference to the land in question, and which maybe deemed irrelevant.

The rulings of the District Court are correct.

Parol testimony could not.be received to prove the agreement between plaintiff and Benton. Agency to purchase real estate must be established in writing.

Oral pi’oof could not have been admitted against Benton, had he been made a party; still less can it be where he is not connected with the suit, and the only defendant is apparently a third person.

The agreement to have the lines run proves nothing of the kind.

The answers of the defendant to the interrogatories were not negatived in writing, and could not be by testimony.

It is useless to refer to authorities.

Judgment affirmed.  