Smith v. Finch
Wisconsin Supreme Court
ARPEAR EKOM CIRCUIT COURT, WAUKESHA COUNTY. The bill of complaint is filed for a specific performance of a parol agreement of sale of the E J NW F’l J, and E J of E. \ of SW J, Sec. 13, T. 8, N. R. 18 E., containing about 106 acres of land situated in the county of Waukesha, made between the complainant, Samuel Smith, and the defendant, Jonathan Finch, the attorney in fact of George Finch.
Read the full summary
ARPEAR EKOM CIRCUIT COURT, WAUKESHA COUNTY. The bill of complaint is filed for a specific performance of a parol agreement of sale of the E J NW F’l J, and E J of E. \ of SW J, Sec. 13, T. 8, N. R. 18 E., containing about 106 acres of land situated in the county of Waukesha, made between the complainant, Samuel Smith, and the defendant, Jonathan Finch, the attorney in fact of George Finch. The complainant alleges that in March, 1853, he being a.resident of Merton, it was agreed between the defendant, Jonathan Finch and himself, at Oak Grove, Dodge county, that he should purchase the lands for…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Whitost, J.
Admitting that the money and the mortgage were sent by the complainant to Jonathan Finch, as the agent of George Finch, and that this part of the verbal agreement was performed by the complainant, still we are of *250opinion that he cannot enforce a specific enformance of it.
Our statute (Rev. Stai, chap. 75, §8) provides that every contract for the sale of any lands or any interest in lands, shall he void unless the contract, or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, be in writing, and he subscribed by the party by whom the sale is to be made.…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Ellis v. CaryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1889
- Clarke v. Lincoln Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
- Harney v. BurhansWisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
- Henrikson v. HenriksonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
- Horn v. LudingtonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1873
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.