Howe v. Hayward
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract for breach of the defendant’s oral agreement to buy the stock of the plaintiff’s livery stable in Milford for $2500. The answer, among other defences, set up the statute of frauds. At the trial in the superior court, Dewey, J., upon special findings of the jury relating to this defence, directed a verdict for the defendant, and reported for the revision of this court the case which is stated in the opinion. .
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, C. J.
It appears by the report, that the parties made an oral contract for the sale of property by the plaintiff to the defendant, and that each of them deposited the sum of $200 in the hands of one Taft. The plaintiff contended that the money deposited by the defendant was given in earnest to bind the bargain, or in part payment. The defendant contended that it was under an agreement that the sum should be forfeited in case he refused without just cause to perform the contract. The jury found that it was not deposited in earnest or in part payment, but was deposited “ as a forfeiture, to be paid…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Morgan v. ForbesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- Krohn v. BantzIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
- Davis v. . MartinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
- Groomer v. McMillanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Sarkisian v. TeeleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.