Nessralla (plaintiff) and his son-in-law Peck (defendant) agreed that Peck would act as a straw man to allow Nesralla to purchase neighboring Sturtevant farm. Nessralla needed Peck to act as a straw because Nessralla and his neighbor were on bad terms. When Nessralla asked about the status of Peck’s purchase of the farm, Peck assured Nessralla that his best efforts were ongoing. Peck purchased the Sturtevant farm in his own name but then conveyed it to himself and his cousin as tenants in common. Nessralla played no part in the transaction and did not provide any of the purchase price. Peck was unresponsive to Nessralla’s requests to sell him the farm. Nessralla sued, seeking specific performance of Peck’s promise to sell him the farm. Applying the statute of frauds, the trial court found in favor of Peck. Nessralla appealed.