Williams v. Robinson
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions from superior court. Assumpsit for damages for alleged breach of contract. At the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence the following paper, which was objected ‘to by the defendant as insufficient, under the statute of frauds, because it shows no consideration, and is indefinite as to the amount to be delivered; but it was admitted by the court : "Augusta, June 8, 1880. I hereby agree to furnish M. F. Williams of New Haven, (post office address West Haven,)…
Read the full summary
On exceptions from superior court. Assumpsit for damages for alleged breach of contract. At the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence the following paper, which was objected ‘to by the defendant as insufficient, under the statute of frauds, because it shows no consideration, and is indefinite as to the amount to be delivered; but it was admitted by the court : "Augusta, June 8, 1880. I hereby agree to furnish M. F. Williams of New Haven, (post office address West Haven,) eight hundred to one thousand tons of ice, delivered on board vessels at Augusta, Maine, properly packed for a voyage to…
1Opinion of the CourtVirgin, J.
At common law, mutual executory contracts for the sale and purchase of goods, wares and merchandise, of whatever value, and however provable, were binding and enforceable. The statute of frauds intervened and prescribed the kind of evidence by which alone they might be established, by entailing upon the parties of certain specified classes of contracts the disability of enforcing them so long as their essential terms remained in mere unwritten words. The statute did not declare
*194such contracts illegal, or void, but simply said they should not be actionable, with certain exceptions, unless…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Mead v. ParkerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Swett v. ShumwayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Riley v. FarnsworthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Slater v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Remick v. SandfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
3Cited by14 opinions
- Ringer v. HoltzclawSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Wilson v. . Lewiston Mill Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Wilkinson v. HeavenrichMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Reigart v. Manufacturers Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Wright v. Seattle Grocery Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1919
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.