Legal Opinion
Runner v. Woitke
District Court, D. Alaska
Decided May 1, 1905No. 222Published
Plaintiff brings this action to recover one-third interest in lot and building in Fairbanks, sold to defendant, Woitke, by Taylor, plaintiff’s partner. His authority to sell is denied.
1Opinion of the Court
WICKERSHAM, District Judge.
There are two questions to be considered in determining this action: (1) Did the deed made by Taylor convey Runner’s legal estate in the lot in dispute to Woitke; and (2) if previously unauthorized, did Runner subsequently ratify the transfer and cure the defect for the want of power?
The statute of Alaska (Code Civ. Proc.) declares that:
“See. 1044. In the following cases an agreement is void unless the same or some note or rnemorandum thereof expressing the consideration be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged, or by his lawfully authorized agent. *…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Oliver v. PiattSupreme Court of the United States · 1845
- Shanks v. KleinSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Lindley v. DavisMontana Supreme Court · 1887
- Anthony v. ButlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- Piatt v. OliverU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio · 1842
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.