case cass versus waterhouse October Eq Abr c S c post a particular write for  the purchase of a estate no write within the statute of fraud unless the party  purchase by it or that it be show he at the time of purchase so that if that  contain more than the word of the conveyance will in strictness carry the  purchaser can compel a specific execution of the residue on the particular the  case be waterhouse the defendant be possess of several house as executrix to  her husband for several term of year and which be in mortgage at the time of  his death and there be likewise two other house which the husband have  purchase for year in his own and his wife name which be not in mortgage at his  death after the death of the husband the defendant his executrix give out  particular wherein be contain as well the house not in mortgage as those that  be in mortgage in order to sell they and be show the plaintiff Cass who have  be much entrust and advice with in all concern of the family other purchaser  not bid enough Cass himself who be a creditor of the precedent in chancery er  p husband come to a agreement with the defendant for the purchase of all the  house and it be pretty evident in the case that all the house be take by  plaintiff and defendant to have be in mortgage and that the defendant be not  apprise that she have any title to any of they in her own right and precedent  in chancery upon the plaintiff agreement there be a conveyance execute of the  house but by the word of it it be restrain to such as be in mortgage afterward  the defendant be advice that the house which be purchase in her husband name  and she come to her by survivorship and be not liable to his debt and that not  be in mortgage they be not convey to the plaintiff she refuse to let he have  they though it appear in the cause she have often say she have sell they as  well as the rest to the plaintiff and he have pay the tax for they so this  bill be bring to have the house convey and to have a far assurance of the  other accord to a covenant but the bill be dismiss as to all but the make far  assurance for though the court seem satisfy that the defendant have covenant  to convey all to the plaintiff and think she have so do yet there be no  agreement in write as to the two house not comprise in the conveyance the  statute of fraud and perjury stand so full in their way that they can not  decree the convey of they for though the particular be in write and these two  house mention in it as well as the other and though it be prove that that  particular be show to the plaintiff yet it be not prove to have be show to he  on his purchase nor that he purchase by it