Pierson v. Dorff

Plaintiffs’ counsel first insists that the written contract between the parties does not comply with the requirements of the statute of frauds; that the description is fatally defective, in that it is impossible from the writing itself to ascertain it; furthermore, that, assuming that oral testimony may be admitted as to surrounding facts and cir*46cumstances in order to fix definitely the description of the property, nevertheless such oral testimony as was introduced is of no aid in that respect; and that after such introduction of oral testimony the definiteness and certainty of the…