Leuschner

Action to compel specific performance of a unilateral agreement to execute and deliver a contract of sale of real estate. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The writing relied upon to satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds is set out in the complaint, and is in the words and figures following, to wit: ■

The sufficiency of the writing to satisfy the statute is not questioned by respondent; and although this matter is presented by appellant as if the judgment of the court rested upon the theory that the writing was not sufficient for this purpose, we find nothing in the findings to justify this assumption.

Accepting it as sufficient for this purpose, it does not follow necessarily that it is a contract the specific performance of which can be compelled. It is not an option for which a valuable consideration was paid, and it is not a contract by its terms binding both parties to it. The $10 received was accepted as a part of the purchase price and the contract of sale to which plaintiff was entitled was dependent upon the payment of “$190 more,” and his obligating himself to pay the further sum…