Stinde v. Scharff
Missouri Court of Appeals
Error to the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Leroy B. Yalliant, Judge. The statute of frauds, as amended by the act of 1887, cannot be invoked by defendant Scharff. This is not a proceeding by the vendee to enforce the contract against the vendor. It is now well settled that the signature of the party charged in the action satisfied the requirements of the statute. 3 Pars.
Read the full summary
Error to the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Leroy B. Yalliant, Judge. The statute of frauds, as amended by the act of 1887, cannot be invoked by defendant Scharff. This is not a proceeding by the vendee to enforce the contract against the vendor. It is now well settled that the signature of the party charged in the action satisfied the requirements of the statute. 3 Pars. Cont. 9, note “L”; Eenley v. Stewart, 5 Sandf. 101. When the question arises as to the authority of the person claiming to be an agent to sign the contract, it is sufficient to establish the fact by parol. Riley v.…
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
The plaintiff is a real-estate agent, and brought this suit in the circuit court to recover the sum of one thous- and dollars which he alleged was due him under a special contract in negotiating for defendant the purchase of certain real estate in the city of St. Louis.
There was a trial by jury, and at the close of plaintiff5 s testimony the court, at the instance of defendant, gave an instruction that under the evidence plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Thereupon plaintiff took a non-suit, with leave to move to set it aside. This motion was filed in due time, and having been overruled…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mooney v. . ElderNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Love v. OwensMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Moreau v. DetchemendySupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
3Cited by1 opinion
- McCormack v. HendersonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903