Appellees introduced evidence to show appellant was not in the sole possession of the eighty acres in question from the date of the making of the alleged contract to the death of the father, and that the only part of the eighty he was in exclusive and continued possession of, was the twelve or fourteen-acre tract upon which were situate the house and other improvements; that the twenty acres of pasture, which was the north twenty of the forty the house was on, was, with the exception of a few years, used and controlled by the father, and that the east forty, which was plow land, was likewise, with the exception of three or four years, used and controlled by the father. It was also testified that the appellant, from about the time of the alleged contract, rented and farmed the one hundred and sixty acres west of the road until its sale, in 1907. After the sale of the west one hundred and sixty acres by the father to Matthew Richardson, Jr., complainant rented the east one hundred and sixty acres, except about eleven acres of the north eighty, upon which were situate the improvements and on which the father lived. Complainant continued to farm it until after the death of his father. The father died May 1, 1911. Soon thereafter appellant paid the executors of his father's estate $600 as back rent, which he admitted owing his father. March 13, 1912, appellant paid the executors $1039.50 rent for the east one hundred and sixty acres for the year 1911. Appellant testified he told the executors of the contract with his father at the time of the payment of the rent for the year 1911. This is denied by the executors. In February, 1912, the executors rented the south eighty to appellant for that year for a cash rental of seven dollars per acre. He wanted the entire one hundred and sixty acres, but the north eighty was rented by the executors to appellant's sister, who lived thereon. One of the executors, Ira Lander, testified leases were drawn for each eighty and the one for the south eighty was given to appellant to sign, and that in a day or two he returned it unsigned and com

plained that the lease only covered eleven acres instead of eighty. It was discovered that in drawing up the lease the number of the section (11) had been inserted instead of the number of acres (80), and the executor took the lease and had it corrected and gave it back to appellant the same day. The lease was never returned by appellant to the executors but he remained in possession and farmed the land that year. The executors asked him for the rent when due, which he refused to pay and referred them to his attorneys.

In the fall of 1911 or spring of 1912 the executors were trying to get the written consent of all the heirs to sell the land within a year after the death of Matthew Richardson, Sr., and appellant, when approached, said he would not sign then, but if the others signed it he would. At this time a notice was served on appellant to vacate the farm March 1, 1912, and he asked the executors what they were going to do about the improvements he had put on the eighty, mentioning certain improvements he claimed he had made and paid for. By agreement of the parties, John Kitch, a carpenter, was to value the improvements mentioned by appellant, and he fixed their value at about $1200. Executor Lander testified they then told appellant they would allow him credit for this sum on a $6000 indebtedness he owed the estate. Appellant made a counter-proposition that if appellees would pay a $4000 note of appellant, on which his father was security, and release him from the $6000 he owed the estate, he would release all his right and interest in the estate. Lander testified he told appellant he would have to see the other executor. Witness testified he and the other executor called on appellant July 9, 1912, and told him they rejected his proposition, and also objected to his claim of $2500 for improvements which he had filed June 4, 1912, against the estate of his father. This claim was objected to by the executors and was withdrawn by appellant before any hearing was had to determine whether the same should be allowed. The greater part of Lander's

testimony was corroborated by the other executor, Matthew Richardson, Jr.

There was a conflict in the evidence as to what improvements were made and paid for by the appellant. Appellees contended that some, at least, of the improvements claimed to have been paid for by appellant were paid for by his father. Several witnesses of appellant testified to different improvements made by appellant going to make up the $2500 claim filed against the estate, which consisted of a barn, a crib, an addition to the house, of fences, sheds, the purchase and planting of fruit trees, and tiling. Several witnesses testified, for appellees, to improvements made and paid for by the father in his lifetime, consisting of tiling, painting the house and barn, the building of fences, etc., and appellees insist that for the improvements made and paid for by appellant he was given credit, from time to time, on the rent he owed his father. Appellees introduced proof that appellant, during his father's lifetime, frequently spoke of buying the eighty in question, and also of his intention of moving off the same. While the payment of rent by appellant to his father is not inconsistent with the terms of the contract claimed, yet the payment of rent for the eighty after the death of the father, together with the leasing of the same from the executors for the year 1912, the proposition made the executors for the release of appellant's interest in his father's estate, statements of appellant's desire to buy the eighty, and other declarations, are not consistent with what would be expected from one who claimed the eighty acres in question, under the terms of the contract, from the date of his father's death.

In June, 1912, more than a year after the father's death, appellant filed a claim against his father's estate for $2500 for improvements made upon the eighty acres in dispute. The claim was for "improvements and buildings placed on lands of deceased with his knowledge and consent and his promise to pay for same, $2500," and was sworn to by

appellant. Whether the filing of this claim was a waiver of the contract, as claimed by appellees, or not, it was inconsistent with appellant's present claim to the land by virtue of the contract of 1890. If appellant expected to get the land, he was not entitled to payment from the estate for improvements made thereon. Appellant insists, however, that at the time the claim was filed he believed all who were present at the making of the contract between him and his father were dead, and that he could not, therefore, prove the making of the contract, and, so believing, he filed the claim; that when he later learned the witness Charles F. Ross was present and heard the contract made and that he could prove the same by him, he withdrew the claim and filed this suit for specific performance of the contract. There was testimony on the part of appellees of acts and statements of appellant's father with reference to the eighty acres in question, and of the appellant's offer to buy the same, wholly inconsistent with the alleged contract. Both of the executors testified that when appellant was negotiating for a lease of the eighty acres for 1912 he said if he did not get it he would have no place to go; that he wanted to stay on the place another year and would then go to Iowa, where he had bargained for a farm.

Without further referring to the testimony, it is sufficient to say a consideration of it convinces us that we would not be warranted in reversing the decree on the ground that it was palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence. It is laid down by all the authorities that in order to entitle one to a specific performance of a parol contract to convey land the contract must be certain and definite in its terms and must be established by evidence free from doubt and suspicion. (Standard v. Standard, 223 Ill. 255; Ranson v. Ranson, 233 id. 369.) In Worth v. Worth, 84 Ill. 442, the court said: "The authorities all agree that a parol contract to convey will not be decreed in a court of equity unless it appears to be certain and definite in its terms and

established by evidence free from doubt or suspicion." Not only must a definite and unequivocal contract be proved, but it is also essential that it be established by clear and convincing proof that the promisee went into possession under the contract and made valuable improvements upon the property with his own means upon the faith of the promise and with the knowledge of the promisor. (Ranson v. Ranson, supra; Standard v. Standard, supra.) Clearer proof is required where the alleged contract is between father and son. (Ranson v. Ranson, supra.) During three-fourths, or more, of the time elapsing between the making of the alleged agreement and the death of appellant's father appellant was not in possession of and did not cultivate or control to exceed twenty acres of the eighty-acre tract, but rented and farmed the one hundred and sixty acres on the west side of the public highway, upon which there were no buildings. There was proof to the effect that appellant's father complained to him that he was not paying rent for the twelve or fourteen acres he had possession and control of, in connection with the buildings. There was also proof that appellant's father paid considerable sums for improvements on the eighty acres after the making of the alleged contract. While the improvements appellant claims to have paid for were proven by him to have been worth $2500, the evidence is not very satisfactory that he paid for all the improvements going to make up the estimate of $2500. While there is no proof that appellant's father paid him for improvements he made, by deductions from the rent, it is by no means clear that the appellant paid an adequate or customary rent. There is no proof of the amount of rent that appellant agreed to pay. There was testimony that his father said he did not charge him as much rent as he would a stranger, and there is also proof that appellant's father complained to him that he did not pay the rent for the twelve or fourteen acres he occupied until his father's death. But whatever the truth may be as to the payment of rent