Pierson v. Ballard
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Koon, J., presiding, overruling a demurrer to the complaint. The contract is sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. Evidence may be resorted to in order to identify the property. The location and identification of the land may be established by parol.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Koon, J., presiding, overruling a demurrer to the complaint. The contract is sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. Evidence may be resorted to in order to identify the property. The location and identification of the land may be established by parol. Sanborn v. Nockin, 20 Minn. 163, (178;) Tice v. Freeman, 30 Minn. 389; Ames v. Lowry, Id. 283; Hurley v. Brown, 98 Mass. 545; Mead v. Parker, 115 Mass. 413; Pomeroy on Contracts, § 90.
1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.
We are to consider as to the sufficiency of a complaint upon which the plaintiff, as the vendor of real property, seeks to enforce against the vendee the specific performance of a contract of sale.
The only facts appearing from the complaint which need be noticed, are these, viz.: That the plaintiff was and is the owner of real property in Hennepin county, in this state, briefly described as the W. J of the S. J of the S. W. ¿ of the S. W. J of the S. E. J of section 11, township 28, range 24; that the plaintiff and defendant entered into a written agreement in these terms:
“Minneapolis, May…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Omaha Loan & Trust Co. v. GoodmanNebraska Supreme Court · 1901
- Ham v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Hollenbeck v. PriorSupreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota · 1888
- Scheck v. KellyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas · 1899