clerk V WRIGHT This case be take from atkins it do not appear in Lord  hardwicke notebook see Gibson v holland lr c p Maddison v Alderson App Cas  February that atk a agree for the purchase of a estate but the agreement not  reduce into write though a in confidence thereof give order for conveyance to  be draw and go several time to view the estate this court will not carry such  agreement into execution and the statute of fraud may be plead to a bill bring  for that purpose a letter be not a sufficient evidence of the agreement unless  the term of the agreement be mention therein but where a man take possession  in pursuance of a agreement the court will decree a execution of it the  plaintiff have agree for the purchase of a estate of the defendant but the  agreement be not reduce into write however in confidence of the agreement  plaintiff have give order for conveyance to be draw and engross and go several  time to view the estate some time after the defendant send a letter to the  plaintiff inform he that at west tempt Hardwicke the time he contract for the  sale of the estate the value of the timber be not know to he and that the  plaintiff shall not have the estate unless he will give he a large price the  bill be bring to carry the agreement into execution to which the statute of  fraud afterward be plead Lord chancellor allow the plea and observe the letter  can not be sufficient evidence of the agreement the term of the agreement not  be therein mentioned Seagood v meal Prec Ch Str but if a letter contain the  term of a agreement or refer to a paper which contain the term it be a  sufficient write agreement to take it out of the statute of fraud see Prec Ch  pale yellow Eq more v heart vern Charles Rep Wankford v Fottherly vern finch v  earl of Winchelsea p wms Welford v Beazley atk Ves Allan v bower bro Charles  can Tawney v crowther ibidem and and see clinan v cook Sch Lef as to the  objection that this agreement be in part perform he allow that when a man take  possession in pursuance of a agreement payment of a considerable part of the  purchasemoney have be consider as a act of part performance Lacon v Mertins  atk main v Melbourn Ves Buckmaster v Harrop Ves but in clinan v cook Sch Lef  Lord Redesdale deny that payment of the purchasemoney be a act of part  performance and see ex part Hooper in the matter of Hewett mere Rep or do any  act of the like nature the court will decree a execution of it but the  circumstance only of give direction for conveyance and go to take a view of  the estate he think not sufficient See Hawkins v Holmes p wms and Stokes v  more Cox Whaley v Bagnall bro PC and Edward bro PC red v Wilkes bro c c Reg  lib a fol