Abba v. Smyth
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from the Second District Court, Weber County, Hon.' H. H. Rolapp, Judge. Action by the plaintiff to recover damages on account of an alleged breach of a written contract. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appealed. An agreement in its first inception may lack mutuality, and may have no consideration expressed, yet certain acts may afterward be done by the party not bound in the first instance, which will give the agreement mutuality and a consideration.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Second District Court, Weber County, Hon.' H. H. Rolapp, Judge. Action by the plaintiff to recover damages on account of an alleged breach of a written contract. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appealed. An agreement in its first inception may lack mutuality, and may have no consideration expressed, yet certain acts may afterward be done by the party not bound in the first instance, which will give the agreement mutuality and a consideration. Jones v. Snow, 2 Pac. R., 29; Harvesting King Go. v. Mitchell, et al., 89 Fed. Rep., 173; Bloom v. Hazard, 37 Pac. (Cal.),…
1Opinion of the Court 1
After stating the facts,
2Opinion of the Court · MinerMiner, J.
The first question for determination is, Was the contract void under the statute of frauds ? Sec. 2467, Rev. Stat., 1898, reads as follows: “ Gertai/n agreements void unless in writing. In the following cases every agreement shall be void, unless such agreement or some note or memorandum thereof be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged therewith.”
*115Under this section unless the essential terms of the contract can be determined from the contract itself, it is within the statute of frauds, and if thus defective, the defect can not be supplied by parol proof,…
3Cases cited14 opinions
- Williams v. MorrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Barry v. CoombeSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Barrett v. McAllisterWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1890
- Duffy v. . O'DonovanNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Ex parte FosterU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1842
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by4 opinions
- Bentley v. PotterUtah Supreme Court · 1984
- Fayter v. NorthUtah Supreme Court · 1906
- Security Leasing Company v. FLINCO, INCORPORATEDUtah Supreme Court · 1969
- Security Leasing Company v. FLINCO, INCORPORATEDUtah Supreme Court · 1969