Is a memorandum containing an agreement as to interest and date of possession sufficient to satisfy the Statutes of Frauds?

It is clear from MoKenzie v. Walsh, supra, that where there is agreement as to interest, date of possession, manner of payment and other such terms prior to the preparation of the memorandum they must be included to satisfy the statute. However, Mignault, J., in MoKenzie v. Walsh, supra, at 323, states: Coming now to the objections founded on the Statutes of Frauds, the only one on which I feel any difficulty is on the point whether the agreement alleged by the appellant as to the payment of the balance of the purchase price and the delivery of possession took place at the interview of February 5, or was a subsequent parol agreement. If the former, I would think it was a material term of the agreement, and should have been mentioned in the memorandum. If it was a subsequent parol agreement, I think the memorandum is sufficient.