Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 25

1875.] ANN BERTA LODGE V. LEVERTON. 2.
Opinion of the court.
a deed for the half lot so purchased by them, when said
agent refused to receive said money so tendered or to give
them a deed; and that defendants had made permanent
and valuable improvements upon the lot; but the specific
character of the improvements or their value, or whether
any of them were made before the virtual repudiation of
the contract by the vendor in refusing to receive the purchase
money and make title, is not alleged. Unquestionably,
if a verbal contract is to be enforced upon the ground
of improvements made by the purchaser, the time and circumstances
under which the improvements were made, and
an approximate estimate at least of their value, should be
shown. The purchaser cannot, with any show of equity,
ask a specific performance of the contract merely by reason
of improvements, after he is advised that the contract,
is repudiated and will not be carried out by the other party.
If he could, the objection which has been urged against decreeing
specific performance of parol contracts, even where
improvements have been made on the faith of the contract,
and with the belief that it would be carried out, that it is
a rule by which parties may be improved out of their estates,
would certainly be well taken. Nor can it be maintained
that any character of improvements or repairs made
on the premises, of however little value, will entitle the
purchaser to have the contract enforced. (Wills v. Stradling,
3 Ves., 378, note a; Frame v. Dawson, 14 Ves., 386; 2
St. Eq., § 764; Browne St. Fraud, 488.)
If we look to the evidence as to the improvements, it
places the defendants in a still worse position than does
the averments of their answer. The testimony is as indefinite
as the answer as to the time when the improvements
were made. But it clearly appears that all of them
were paid for out of the rents of the property. And this
demonstrates that all of them, except of a very trivial
haracter, and such as would usually be made by a cotenant,
as was the defendants' and the plaintiff's vendor