(1) There was sufficient consideration to support the oral agreement to convey the land. Smith v. Lore, 29 S.W.2d 91; Harrison v. Town, 17 Mo. 237; Campbell v. McLaughlin, 205 S.W. 18; 58 C.J., p. 950, sec. 125. (2) There was consideration and same was sufficient to take the contract out of the Statute of Frauds. Cave v. Wells, 319 Mo. 930; Phelps v. McCow, 210 Mo. App. 514; Van Meter v. Poole, 130 Mo. App. 433; Self v. Cordell, 45 Mo. 345; Congregation v. Arky, 20 S.W.2d 899. (3) The evidence does establish a clear, definite and unequivocal contract, and specific performance should lie: Walker v. Bohannon, 243 Mo. 119; Edwards v. Watson, 258 Mo. 631; Smith v. Lore, 325 Mo. 282, 29 S.W.2d 91. BOHLING, C.
(2) There was complete performance on the part of the plaintiff company which bars the defendants from attempting to rely on the Statute of Frauds. Phelps v. McCaw, 210 Mo. App. 514. E.L. Burton and Goodwin Creason for respondents.
A full performance of a contract upon his part, if the county had authority to make the contract in writing, would take any defective contract made by appellants out of the Statute of Frauds, and entitle him to recover. Hubbard v. Glass Works, 188 Mo. 39; Hall v. Harris, 145 Mo. 622; Phelps v. McCaw, 240 S.W. 845. (2) County courts or county boards may contract for printing, stationery, indexing or transcribing county records and for making all lists of property within the county, its valuation, owners, etc. And may employ counsel other than the official attorney to represent it in civil suits in which the county is interested.