Gist v. Eubank
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Moniteau Circuit Cowrt. I. The petition does not allege that the contract between plaintiff and defendant was in writing. (22 Mo. 334 ; Statute of Frauds.) It does not allege that plaintiff took possession of the land with the consent of defendant, nor that he made lasting and valuable improvements. There was nothing to take the case out of the statute. (2 Mo. 126 ; 20 Mo. 86.) The finding of the facts does not warrant the judgment.
1Opinion of the CourtEwing, Judge
This action was begun under the practice act now in force, which does not authorize the finding of facts by the court, as the act of 1849 did. The finding, therefore, will be dis*249regarded• and, as none of tbe evidence is preserved by the bill of exceptions, the only question for our determination is as to the sufficiency of the petition. In deciding this point, it is unnecessary to consider whether the facts and circumstances alleged in the petition show such a part performance as — supposing the contract not in writing — would be sufficient to take the case out of the statute of frauds and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- De La Vergne v. EvertsonNew York Court of Chancery · 1828
3Cited by5 opinions
- Wall v. Continental Casualty Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. DubachSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Brown v. CarterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Moormeister v. HannibalMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Wegner v. GrayMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909