Hall v. Alford
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 83 — ACTION ON CONTRACT 1. The promise sued on was not established. 2. Such a promise, if it had been established, was within the statute of frauds. Citations: Birchell v. Neaster, 36 O. St., 331,' Gill v. Herrick, 111 Mass., 501; Haveriy v. Mercur, 78 Penn. St., 257; Horn-ham v. Davis (Me.) 1887, - Atl.
Read the full summary
Case 83 — ACTION ON CONTRACT 1. The promise sued on was not established. 2. Such a promise, if it had been established, was within the statute of frauds. Citations: Birchell v. Neaster, 36 O. St., 331,' Gill v. Herrick, 111 Mass., 501; Haveriy v. Mercur, 78 Penn. St., 257; Horn-ham v. Davis (Me.) 1887, - Atl. Rep., 725; Warner v. Willoughby, 60 Conn., 468; Tanquary v. Walker, 47 111. App., 451; Dequis v. Improvement Co., 88 Mich., 103; Baker v. Ingersoll, 39 Mich., 158; Morrisey v. Kinsey, 27 Neb., 662; Noyes v. Humphries, 11 Gratt. (Va.), 636; Armstrong v. Flora, 3 Mon., 43; Waggener v.…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE BURNAM
delivered the opinion oe the court.
Appellant contracted with TV. H. Dye to build three dwelling houses for him. Dye subcontracted for the painting on the houses with appellee Alford, and for the stone and brick work with appellee Poteet; and, these suits were instituted by appellees against W. H. Dye and appellant, seeking a personal judgment against each of them, and to subject the property of appellant to a mechanic’s lien for labor performed and material furnished under their contract with Dye. They seek to hold appellant liable- — First, on a direct promise, made to appellees,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hendrick v. LindsaySupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- National Bank v. Grand LodgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Paducah Lumber Co. v. Paducah Water Supply Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1889
- Hall v. Scott's Adm'rCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1890
- Mize v. BarnesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1880
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Lindley v. KellySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Wadsworth Electric Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1930
- Ball v. CecilCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1941
- Way v. BaydushSupreme Court of Virginia · 1922
- Clow Gas Steam Heating Co. v. CrowellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1935
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.