CONTRACTS-STATUTE OF FRAUDS-ESTOPPEL

Plaintiff, the lessee of a building, with the consent of the owner, sub-let it for an increased rental. On the oral representation of the plaintiff that he would assign the sub-lease, which had one year and six months to run, defendant purchased the property. Plaintiff then refused to assign and claimed the rental under the sub-lease. The lower court excluded evidence of the oral promise on the ground that it was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. On appeal, it was held, one justice dissenting, that the proof of the oral promise to assign the lease should have been admitted, although it was within the Statute of Frauds, on the ground that the plaintiff was precluded from setting up the statute because of the principle of equitable estoppel, as defendant had relied to his detriment on plaintiff\u27s promise. Vogel v. Shaw (Wyo. 1930) 294 Pac. 687