Couch v. Meeker
Supreme Court of Connecticut
THIS was an action on a promissory note, for 500 dollars, dated the 14th of March, 1816, and payable to the plaintiff, on demand.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action on a promissory note, for 500 dollars, dated the 14th of March, 1816, and payable to the plaintiff, on demand. The defendant pleaded, 1st, non assumpsit, on which issue was joined ; 2dly, that there was a condition endorsed on the note in these words : “ The condition of the within note is such, that the said Meeker hath this day bargained his Starr farm (so called) to the said Couch ; now, if the said Meeker stands to the bargain, the within note is to be void : if not, then the within note is to stand in full force and the defendant averred, that he had fully kept and…
1Opinion of the Court
Switt, Ch. J.
The question in this ca.se, is, whether the contract is within the provisions of the; slid utc against frauds and perjuries.
The statute is, that no suit in law or equily shall be brought or maintained upon any contract or sale of lands, or any interest in or concerning them; unless the agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be made in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person by him authorised. This statute only requires, that the agreement on which the action is brought, should be in…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Campbell v. ThomasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
- Vaught v. PettyjohnSupreme Court of Kansas · 1919
- Massmann v. HolscherSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. AtkisonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Litchfield v. FalconerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1841
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.