Hough & Wood v. Birge
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of assumpsit for use and occupation.— Plea non assumpsit, and issue to the court. On the trial in the county court, the following facts were agreed upon by the parties.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit for use and occupation.— Plea non assumpsit, and issue to the court. On the trial in the county court, the following facts were agreed upon by the parties. A contract was made between the parties as follows: March 21st, 1832. “ I this day agree to-'sell to Cyrus Birge the house and lot now occupied by Rev. S. A. Crane, in this village, for $750, $259 tobe paid in five months from the 1st of May, without interest, $250 in one year from 1st of May, $250 in two years from^lst of May, with interest. Deed to be given on return of Mr. Hough from Washington. (Signed,)…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, J.
The contract entered into between the defendant and Wood in relation to the purchase of this house and lot, must be considered as binding upon the plaintiffs until rescinded by the defendant, which he did not do until his purchase of the lot of the creditors, and which he might well do, after all title had gone from the plaintiffs.
The statute of frauds does not make contracts, not reduced to writing, for the sale of land, void; but it provides that “no action shall be maintained thereon.” This contract was reduced to writing and signed by…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Dwight v. CutlerMichigan Supreme Court · 1855
- McNair v. SchwartzIllinois Supreme Court · 1854
- Bates v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1976
- Cunningham v. PottsDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1925
- Chamberlin v. DonahueSupreme Court of Vermont · 1871
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.