— Whether, if the contract, as set forth by the Complainant, was admitted by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff had taken possession of the land in consequence thereof, such contract ought to be carried into effect since the passage of our statute of frauds, I give no opinion.
The Plaintiff in this case sets forth one contract which the Defendant denies, and sets forth another contract, widely different from it, both by parol — and it is a question, whether either of them was understandingly entered into by the parties. To go into testimony to ascertain whether any, and, what contract the parties have entered *343into, would be laying aside the act of Assembly altogether ami sapping its usefulness. Indeed if the evidence pee-ponderated in favor of the Plaintiff, as perhaps it does, the enquiry would be equally improper. I am therefore of opinion, that the decree should be reversed, so far as it ordered the execution of the contract, because I think the circumstance of the Plaintiff’s taking possession of the land does not obviate the objection and impropriety of going into an inquiry, to ascertain what the contract really was.
— Let the decree complained of be reversed, and let an account be taken by the Clerk of the costs and damages sustained by the Plaintiff in consequence of the Defendant’s suing him at law and turning him out of possession of the lands mentioned in the hill, and let the cause be retained for further directions upon the coming in of the report.