Legal Opinion · Concurrence
Fothergill v. McKay Press
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided December 1, 1960No. Docket 6, Calendar 48,171PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1ConcurrenceBlack, J.
In Warner v. Texas & Pacific R. Co. (1896), 164 US 418 (17 S Ct 147, 41 L ed 495), the supreme court had occasion to review generally the authoritative history of this particular provision of the statute of frauds. The following conclusion was reached (pp 422, 423):
“It thus appears to have been the settled construction of this clause of the statute in England, before the Declaration of Independence, that an oral agreement which, according to the intention of the parties, as shown by the terms of the contract, might be fully performed within a year from the time it was made, was not within the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Warner v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Blake v. . VoigtNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- N. E. D. Holding Co. v. McKinleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Adolph v. Cookware Co. of AmericaMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
- Sax v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1900
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Dumas v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1991
- Huntington National Bank v. Aronoff Living TrustMichigan Court of Appeals · 2014
- Rowe v. Noren Pattern & Foundry Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1979
- Cowdrey v. a T TransportMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985
- Fothergill v. McKay PressMichigan Supreme Court · 1965
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.