Legal Opinion

Barnett v. Meisterling

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided October 22, 1927No. 17895. Decree affirmedPublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice DeYoung

Lucius Barnett filed his bill of complaint in the superior court of Cook county against Henry Meisterling for the specific performance of an instrument alleged to be a contract for the sale by Meisterling to Barnett of a certain parcel of real estate. The defendant answered the bill, denying its material allegations and invoking the Statute of Frauds. Upon a hearing a decree of specific performance was rendered. From that decree Meisterling prosecutes this appeal.

The instrument in question is as follows:

“Chicago, III., April 2, 1925.
“Received of Lucius Barnett the sum of $50 as part payment…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Keogh v. PeckIllinois Supreme Court · 1925
  2. National Importing & Trading Co. v. E. A. Bear & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Mishelsky v. CarmanIllinois Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Kopeyka v. WoodstromIllinois Supreme Court · 1922

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Ozier v. HainesIllinois Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Lake Shore Country Club v. BrandIllinois Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Loeb v. GendelIllinois Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Keefer v. United Electric Coal CompaniesAppellate Court of Illinois · 1937
  5. McMillan v. IngoliaAppellate Court of Illinois · 1980

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API