Howard v. Easton

Per Curiam. Here was an agreement to sell and deliver possession, as well as the improvements upon land; [207] and possession must be considered as an interest in land, within the meaning of the statute of frauds, so as to render the contract void, as not having been reduced to writing. Possession is prima facie evidence of title, and no title is complete without it. The judgment below must, therefore, be reversed.. Judgment reversed*