Vindquest v. Perky
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court of Saunders county. Tried below before George W. Post, J. 1. The petition does not show that the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter. 2. There is no memoranda in writing stated'in the petition showing a complete and completed contract.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court of Saunders county. Tried below before George W. Post, J. 1. The petition does not show that the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter. 2. There is no memoranda in writing stated'in the petition showing a complete and completed contract. The memoranda must contain in writing the substantial terms of the contract expressed in such certainty that they may be understood without resorting to parol evidence; and this must be shown by the petition. Waterman on Specific Performance of Contracts, § 234. This petition does not show any writing from Perky to…
1Opinion of the Court
Cobb, Ch. J.
This action was brought in the court below to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the conveyance of real estate. The defendant demurred generally to the *286plaintiff's petition. The demurrer it seems was filed on the 30th day of May, 1882. The journal entry shows that the cause was brought on to a hearing on the 27th day of October of the same year; that the demurrer was overruled, and the defendant called and defaulted for want of further answer; whereupon the court proceeded to hear proofs in said cause on the part of said plaintiff, ex parte, and rendered judgment…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gartrell v. StaffordNebraska Supreme Court · 1882
3Cited by5 opinions
- Ecklund v. WillisNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- Wright v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- Eames v. BarberMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
- Crocker v. SteidlNebraska Supreme Court · 1908
- Overlander v. WareNebraska Supreme Court · 1918