Romani v. Harris
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1DissentMcWilliams, J.
I cannot agree that the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, Code, Art. 95B, § 2-201 (1) (1964 Repl. Vol.), were satisfied. I would modify the decision of the court below by deducting from the total award the $4,600 purchase price of the painting.
It is settled that the provisions of the statute apply to auction sales. And it is generally held, as the majority points out, that the auctioneer or his clerk is the agent of both seller and purchaser for the limited purpose of making and signing a memorandum sufficient to satisfy the statute. See 28 A.L.R. 1114, 1118 (1924) ; J. Bateman, Law of…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Williams v. WoodsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1860
- Montgomery v. Pacific Coast Land BureauCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Ryan v. GilbertMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
- Tull v. DavidSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- Hearn v. RuarkCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1925
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.