Green v. Finin
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Bill for an injunction to restrain the respondent from committing waste upon land of the petitioner in his possession, with a cross-bill praying that the petitioner be compelled to convey the land in question to the respondent. The following facts were reported by a committee to whom the case was referred.
Read the full summary
Bill for an injunction to restrain the respondent from committing waste upon land of the petitioner in his possession, with a cross-bill praying that the petitioner be compelled to convey the land in question to the respondent. The following facts were reported by a committee to whom the case was referred. The premises in dispute belonged in 1842 to Lyman Page, and during the year 1842 it was agreed by parol between Page and Einin that Page should- sell the premises to Einin for $200. In pursuance of this agreement Einin entered into possession and made improvements by clearing up portions of…
1Opinion of the CourtButler, J.
Two errors are assigned upon this record, neither of which is manifest.
1. The first is, that parol evidence was not admissible to prove the contract set up by the defendant in his cross-bill. The claim would be correct if the evidence had not also shown a sufficient part-performance to relieve the case from the operation of the statute of frauds. But, where under a contract for the sale of lands possession is delivered and held, and especially if a part or all of the purchase-money is paid and the vendee makes improvements upon the estate, the contract of sale, in connection with evidence of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Eaton v. WhitakerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1846
3Cited by3 opinions
- Padula v. PadulaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
- Gill v. BradleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1874
- Abbott v. BaldwinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881