Elliot v. Barrett
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, for breach of an agreement to convey to the plaintiff certain real estate on Cedar Park in Melrose. Answer, the statute of frauds.
Read the full summary
Contract, for breach of an agreement to convey to the plaintiff certain real estate on Cedar Park in Melrose. Answer, the statute of frauds. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Blodgett, J., who reported the case for the determination of this court, in substance as follows : One Hannaford, a real estate broker, testified that the defendant, in the year 1882, placed said real estate in his hands for sale; that shortly before October 13, 1883', he had negotiations with one J. M. Elliot, the tiusband of the plaintiff, (who testified that he was acting for the plaintiff,) for a…
1Opinion of the CourtC. Allen, J.
There was no memorandum signed by the defendant, “ or by some person thereunto by him lawfully authorized,” as required by the statute of frauds. Pub. Sts. a. 78, § 1. Hannaford made no memorandum until after the defendant had contracted to sell the land to another purchaser, and had so informed Hannaford; whereby his authority ceased. Moreover, the contract as made by Hannaford was not expressed in either memorandum. The terms of sale were omitted. If Hannaford was authorized to make, in behalf of the defendant, the contract as testified to by him, he was not authorized to make a memorandum…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Rucker v. HarringtonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- Forman v. GadouasMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
- Hayes v. JacksonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- Giolitto v. DingoloMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
- Espy v. EellsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1965
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.