According to the plaintiff's own testimony, he has no right to enforce a vendor's lien.
1. Because he never demanded the purchase-price in accordance with the contract of sale.
2. Because, admitting that he did demand the price, it was not paid, and in that event, his remedy was for a reconveyance of the title.
3. But he is not entitled to a reconveyance of the title, because the deed was for a valuable consideration, and parol evidence is inadmissible to show the vendee is a trustee for vendor, and the plaintiff testifies that there wasno written contract to that effect, and to enforce it would be in the teeth of the Statute of Frauds.
OPINION By the Court:
The alleged agreement on the part of defendant to reconvey the land was void under the Statute of Frauds. The case is one, therefore, in which the plaintiff sold and conveyed the lands to defendant, the latter to pay the purchase-price on demand; and as the bringing of this equitable action was a sufficient demand, the plaintiff is entitled to have his vendor's lien declared and enforced. (Leman v. Whitley, 4 Russell's Ch. 423.)
Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.