case gunter against Halsey Trin term see Maddison v Alderson Q b d and S c on  appeal App Cas Humphreys v green Q b d equity will decree performance of  parole agreement if it be admit in the answer or if material and unequivocal  act have be do in part performance No entry in l r Hawkins v Holmes p wms this  bill be bring for a specific performance of a agreement for sale of land and  house which be by parole but reduce into write by a person present but never  sign by the party the defendant insist on the statute of fraud and there be  evidence of fact to prove a part performance Lord chancellor in this case say  the rule for agreement by the statute be very plain but that since the statute  this court have by construction lie down some rule b way of exception to it  and will in some case decree a performance though the requisite of the statute  be not observe as where the agreement be parole and admit by the answer  because here it be out of the mischief of the statute so when there have be  material act do in part performance Prec in Ch wanley v Saivbridge in  exchequer g mich attorneygeneral v day Ves Whaley v Baginal brow parliament  can Brownsword v Edward Ves Foxgrave v Lister Colles p S c cite vern but the  general rule of those case have be where the act have be such as will be a  prejudice to the party who have do they if after that the agreement be to be  void and in all those case where the ground of the decree have be part  performance the term of the agreement must be certain prove then he go into  the particular circumstance of this case and as to certainty of agreement he  think it be not certain prove by reason there be query in the margin though no  proof who make they as to the act do in performance they must be such as can  be do with no other view or design than to perform ambler the agreement and  say in this case it do not appear but that the act do by defendant may be do  with other view dismiss bill but without cost child v Godolphin dick  cottington v Fletcher atk attorneygeneral v day Ves Whitchurch v Bevis bro c c  potter v potter Ves Huddleston v Briscoe Ves but it be now settle that if a  defendant admit by his answer the parole agreement he may still insist upon  the statute of fraud as a bar to its performance Blagden v Bradbear Ves row v  teed Ves but if a defendant have by his answer admit the agreement and submit  to perform it he can by his answer to the amend bill plead the statute of  fraud spurrier v Fitzgerald Ves ambler er p a agreement although reduce into  write be not bind unless it be sign by the party Bawder v amhurst pre Ch  Hawkins v Holmes p wms Ramsbottom v Tunbridge Mau Sel Ramsbottom v Mortley ib  see Whitchurch v Bevis bro c c Sugd vend but if the name be insert in the  agreement in such manner as to have the effect of authenticate the instrument  it do not signify in what part of the instrument it be find Welford v Beazley  atk coal v Trecothick Ves Morrison v turnour Ves Stokes v more Cox Allen v  Bennet taunt western v Russel V b Selby Selby mere see Ogilvie v Foljambe mere  sanderson v Jackson Bos pull it have be hold that where a agreement be sign by  one party only it may be enforce against that party Hatton v grey Ch can  Coleman v Upcot vin Abr pl Buckhouse v Crosby Eq can Abr pl S c cite I W S c  Swanst in note Owen v Davies Ves sen Seton v Slade Ves jun foul v freeman Ves  western v Russell v b join v Statham atk but in late case this have be  question Huddleston v Briscoe Ves lawrenson v butler Sch Lef ORourke v  Percival Dall Bea Martin v Mitchell I W it can be enforce against the party  who have not sign I W but if that party file a bill for a specific performance  of the agreement it make it bind on he ibidem and see potter v potter Ves see  Jones v sheriff cite Mod it appear from a note of Lord hardwicke give by Mr  west in his report of this case can tempt ld Ch Hardwicke p that the bill be  dismiss because it be uncertain from whence the agreement be to commence and  because the act do by the defendant be not show to be in pursuance of the  agreement a agreement will not be consider as full execute unless the act do  be such as can be do with no other view than to perform the agreement see Sugd  vend Lacon v Mertins atk frame v Dawson Ves nor unless such act put the party  into a situation that it be a fraud upon he unless the agreement be perform  clinan v cook Sch Lef frame v Dawson ub sup Buckmaster v Harrop Ves