1. An agreement to extend the time for passing title more than one year is within the operation of the statute of frauds and cannot be proved by parol evidence.
2. The contract for the sale of the land in question called for delivery of the deed in December, 1926. This bill for specific performance was filed in January, 1929. Inasmuch as the oral agreement between the parties extending the time for the passing of title until May, 1929, cannot be proved by parol evidence, this leaves the delay in bringing the suit unexplained. Complainant is guilty of laches.
3. At the time the contract for the sale of land was made, complainant knew that defendant was only a tenant in common, being owner of only an undivided eight-ninths of the premises. Complainant cannot now obtain a conveyance of the defendant's interest in this suit for specific performance, by payment of the purchase price, less an abatement. Peeler v. Levy, 26 N.J. Eq. 330.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Bigelow.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, CAMPBELL, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, KERNEY, JJ. 14.
For reversal — None.