Cook v. Doggett
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract to recover back $100, paid by the plaintiff as a portion of the price of land, under an oral contract for the purchase thereof with the defendant, which the defendant afterwards refused to fulfil.; and the expense of cutting and gathering into the defendant’s barn the grass thereon.
Read the full summary
Contract to recover back $100, paid by the plaintiff as a portion of the price of land, under an oral contract for the purchase thereof with the defendant, which the defendant afterwards refused to fulfil.; and the expense of cutting and gathering into the defendant’s barn the grass thereon. At the trial in the superior court, the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that the defendant sold to the plaintiff a farm, with certain personal property thereon, for $5500, and orally agreed to prepare and execute a deed thereof, he receiving at the time $100 to bind the bargain, and the…
1Opinion of the CourtMetcalf, J.
An action for money had and received lies for recovering back money paid by a party to an agreement which is invalid by the statute of frauds, and which the other party refuses to perform. Gillet v. Maynard, 5 Johns. 85. Browne on St. of Frauds, § 122. This is not denied by the defendant; but he contends that this action cannot be maintained, because the plaintiff did not tender to him the rest of the money which, by the terms of their oral agreement, he was to receive for performance of his part of that agreement.
It is very clear, on the authorities, that the judge, at the trial, correctly…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gillet v. MaynardNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Smith v. LewisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1857
- Shreve v. GrimesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1823
3Cited by1 opinion
- Brightwell v. Oglethorpe Telephone Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1933