Hinkle v. Hinkle
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Crawford Circuit Court in chancery. Hugh F. Thomason, Judge. ' ' 1. In order to take a parol contract out of the statute of frauds by part performance, the agreement must be clearly proved, must be certain and definite. 39 Ark., 424; Younge, 346; 5 Ga., 341; Waterman, Spec.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Crawford Circuit Court in chancery. Hugh F. Thomason, Judge. ' ' 1. In order to take a parol contract out of the statute of frauds by part performance, the agreement must be clearly proved, must be certain and definite. 39 Ark., 424; Younge, 346; 5 Ga., 341; Waterman, Spec. Perf., sec. 265 ; 5 Wait, Ac. & Def., 778. The doctrine does not apply between co-tenants. 44 Ark., 79. , 2. It must also be mutual. 2 Wheat., 336; 6 Ohio, 383; 5 Wait, Ac. & Def., 788; 10 Wall., 359; 46 Iowa, 205; 6 Paige, 288; 2 A. K. Marsh., 346; 59 Am. Dec., 749. 3. The alleged contract does not describe…
1Opinion of the CourtHemingway, J.
This suit is founded on an alleged parol contract between the plaintiff on the one side, and Malinda Hinkle, his mother, and John Hinkle, his brother, on the other side, which it is claimed was made by John for himself and Malinda, and subsequently ratified by her.
By the contract as set out the latter parties promised the former party that, for a consideration named, the plaintiff should acquire the right to occupy and use a certain brick house in Van Burén and the lots upon which it is situate for the remainder of the life of the said Malinda; also the present enjoyment of his undivided…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Daily ex rel. Daily v. MinnickSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Goodrum v. Merchants & Planters BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Alma v. Steele, Individually and as of the Estate of Charles F. Steele, Deceased v. Lelia M. McCargoCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1958
- Fred v. AsburySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Kirkland v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.