Ver Steeg v. M. Longo Fruit Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Eugene McQuillin, Judge. (1) This was not a proper case to allow parol testimony to prove a verbal contract which, under the Statute of Frauds, should be in writing.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Eugene McQuillin, Judge. (1) This was not a proper case to allow parol testimony to prove a verbal contract which, under the Statute of Frauds, should be in writing. (2) Even if the contract, as alleged in the plaintiff’s petition, was made between the plaintiff and the defendant, that contract, under section 7883 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1909, operated to create a tenancy from month to month, which could be terminated by giving a month’s notice in writing. Therefore defendant’s instructions 3 and 4 ought to have been given. Sec.…
1Opinion of the CourtCaulfield, J.
(after stating the facts). — The defendant assigns as error the action of the trial court in giving the declaration of law set forth in our statement of fact. This assignment we consider well taken.
The contract sued on must he in writing under the Statute of Frauds. [Section 2783, Revised Statutes, 1909; Donovan v. Schoenhofen, 92 Mo. App. 341.] And this being an action at law upon such a contract, nothing 'short of full performance on the plaintiff’s part could take it out of the statute. [Johnson v. Reading, 36 Mo. App. 306; Nally v. Reading, 107 Mo. 350, 17 S. W. 978.] By its declaration…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bless v. JenkinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Winters v. CherrySupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Nally v. ReadingSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Johnson v. ReadingMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- Donovan v. P. Schoenhofen Brewing Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Rosenberg v. Gas Service CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1962
- Sursa v. CashMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913