Legal Opinion · Dissent

Stinchcomb v. Stinchcomb

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided February 26, 1952No. 34508Published

1Dissent

HALLEY, V.C.J.

(dissenting). I regret having to dissent in this case, but I think the majority opinion wholly disregards the statute of frauds of this state in that it makes title to real estate rest on oral testimony alone, where the facts do not justify it.

Our statute of frauds was first shown in the statutes of Oklahoma Territory in 1890, and was adopted from the Laws of Dakota Territory of 1887, which was undoubtedly taken from Lord Tenterden’s Act, §§6 and 7, Statute 9 George IV, c. 14. Its purpose was “to prevent fraud and perjury in the enforcement of obligations depending for their…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Harris Et Ux. v. ArthurSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
  2. Johnston v. BaldockSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
  3. Cannon v. UnruhSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
  4. Webster v. NealSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API