Heideman v. Wolfstein
Missouri Court of Appeals
Error to the St. Louis Circuit Court, Horner, J. The original pencil memorandum was not a sufficient memorandum to satisfy the statute of frauds, because it does not show that the contract between the parties was a contract of sale. — Lee v. Hill, 66 Ind. 474. Because it does not contain the names of both parties to the contract, and does notshow ( conceding the nature of the transaction) whether Wolfstein was buyer or seller.— Grafton v. Cummings, 99 U. S. 100; Brown on…
Read the full summary
Error to the St. Louis Circuit Court, Horner, J. The original pencil memorandum was not a sufficient memorandum to satisfy the statute of frauds, because it does not show that the contract between the parties was a contract of sale. — Lee v. Hill, 66 Ind. 474. Because it does not contain the names of both parties to the contract, and does notshow ( conceding the nature of the transaction) whether Wolfstein was buyer or seller.— Grafton v. Cummings, 99 U. S. 100; Brown on Stat. Fr. (4th. ed.), sect. 372. Because it does not sufficiently identify the subject-matter of the sale, or the price.…
1Opinion of the CourtLewis, P. J.
The plaintiffs sued before a justice of the peace for breach of the defendant’s contract to sell and deliver to them thirteen rolls of leather at prices agreed upon. The justice’s judgmentwas for the plaintiffs, and, on the defendant’s appeal, a similar result was reached in the circuit cdurt. The only question in the case is, whether there was a sufficient note or memorandum in writing of the sale, to satisfy the statute of frauds.
The testimony tended to show that, in June, 1879, a salesman of the defendant called on the plaintiffs in the course of his business, and, when a sale was agreed…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Peycke Bros. v. AhrensMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Carman v. HarrahMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Greeley-Burnham Grocer Co. v. CapenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- Mayer v. Hirsch, Stein & Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1918
- J. K. Armsby Co. v. EckerlyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.