Fisk v. Henarie
Oregon Supreme Court
Multnomah County. Plaintiff appeals. There is a distinction between cases of a contract made by written correspondence and cases where the question is whether or not there is a note or. memorandum of a contract already existing in parol sufficient to take it out of the statute of frauds.
Read the full summary
Multnomah County. Plaintiff appeals. There is a distinction between cases of a contract made by written correspondence and cases where the question is whether or not there is a note or. memorandum of a contract already existing in parol sufficient to take it out of the statute of frauds. In the former case, both parties should sign letters assenting to the same thing; in the latter, it is only necessary that a writing specifying the essentials of the agreement be signed by the party to be charged. (Peabody v. Bpeyers, 56 N. Y. 236; Gale v. Nixon, 6 Cow. 444; Norton v. The American Ring Co., 1…
1Opinion of the CourtThayeb, J.
The appellant commenced an action in the court below against the respondents to recover the-*159sum of $60,000, commissions alleged to have been earned in procuring a purchaser of lands owned by respondents, situated in the counties of Wasco, Grant, and Baker, in this state, consisting of a tract of 600,000 acres, and known as “ The Dalles Military Road Company’s Land Grant.” He alleged in his complaint in said action that on and prior to October 1, 1881, D. V. B. Henarie, Eleanor Martin, James V. Martin, Genevieve Martin, Peter D. Martin, Walter S. Martin, Andrew D. Martin, Thomas S. Martin,…
2Cited by22 opinions
- Allen v. HendrickOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Booth v. MoodyOregon Supreme Court · 1896
- Buckingham v. HarrisSupreme Court of Colorado · 1887
- York v. NashOregon Supreme Court · 1903
- Durkee v. CarrOregon Supreme Court · 1900
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.