Bernitt

(after stating the facts as above). [1] The appellants rely upon the statute o-f frauds, and contend that that statute applies to a boom and the tidelands on which it is constructed, and that, since the tidelands belonged to E. B. Dean & Co., the predecessors in- interest of the appellees could acquire no interest therein, except by a conveyance in writing. But the statute of frauds does not affect the rights of the parties under the circumstances which are shown by the evidence in this case. “Where an o-ral contract, which is unenforceable by reason of the statute of frauds, has been entirely performed, the rights of the parties are no longer affected by the statute, and it is immaterial that either party might have refused to perform. Where oral agreements creating interests in land have been carried into effect by the acts of the parties, the rights acquired thereunder are not affected by the statute.” 20 Cyc. 302, 303; White v. Cleaver, 75 Mich. 17 , 42 N. W. 530 ; Knecht v. Mitchell, 67 Ill. 86 ; Anderson v. Simpson, 21 Iowa, 399 ; Newman v. Nellis, 97 N. Y. 285 ; Brown v. Bailey, 159 Pa. 121 , 28 Atl. 245 ; C. C. C. & St. R. Ry. Co. v. Wood, 189 Ill. 352 , 59 N. E. 619 ;…