Slater v. Howie
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Leavenworth District Court. Action by Slater against Howie and wife for specific performance of a contract to convey certain land. On a judgment for defendants, February 2, 1889, plaintiff brings error. The three telegrams and letter admitted to have been written by Mrs. Howie constituted a contract of sale between these parties for this property.
Read the full summary
Error from Leavenworth District Court. Action by Slater against Howie and wife for specific performance of a contract to convey certain land. On a judgment for defendants, February 2, 1889, plaintiff brings error. The three telegrams and letter admitted to have been written by Mrs. Howie constituted a contract of sale between these parties for this property. And subsequent conditions attempted to be imposed by Mr. Howie were absolutely impotent to annul, vary or alter the conditions of this contract. That he requested Covert to make out a deed and send it to him for signature, is of no moment…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Strang, C.
Action for specific performance. 'The plaintiff alleges that he purchased of and from the defendants lot 7, in block 36, in the city of Atchison, Kas.; that the contract is in writing, and consists of a series of telegrams between the parties, all of which were made a part •of the petition in the case. Trial was had by the court without a jury, which made the following findings of fact:
“1. On the 15th of September, 1886, Matthew F. Howie and Lydia E. Howie were, and for many years had been, husband and wife.
“2. On said 15th day of September, 1886, said Matthew F. Howie…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Roffinella v. RoffinellaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923