Burke v. Ray
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for St. Louis county, to obtain specific performance of an alleged verbal agreement for the sale of a house and lot, alleged to have been partially performed by taking possession and making improvements.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for St. Louis county, to obtain specific performance of an alleged verbal agreement for the sale of a house and lot, alleged to have been partially performed by taking possession and making improvements. The action was tried by Stearns, J., who found as facts that defendant Robert C. Ray is owner of the premises in controversy, and on September 1, 1886, by defendant James D. Ray, his authorized agent, “entered into some verbal agreement with the plaintiff relative to the sale of the lands described in the complaint, to the plaintiff, for the…
1Opinion of the CourtGtlutllan, C. J.
Specific performance of an oral agreement to convey lands will not be enforced unless the contract is clearly proved, both as to the fact of making it and as to its terms. The statement of the court below, in its findings of fact, that it is unable to determine from the evidence what the terms of the agreement between plaintiff and defendant were, is not only justified by the evidence, but it is a finding, in effect, that the allegations of the complaint as to the terms of the agreement are unproved; in other words, that those allegations are untrue. It would have been in better form had the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Coffin v. BradburyIdaho Supreme Court · 1894
- Conant v. Estate of KimballWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Cappis v. WiedemannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- Ferrier v. McCabeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Twohy Mercantile Co. v. Estate of McDonaldWisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.