Bailey v. Le Roy
New York Court of Chancery
Bill for specific contract of a sale of lands ; and plea of the statute of frauds interposed. No answer accompanied the plea. The bill showed a sale of certain lots in the city of New-York: and among them, some struck off to, the defendant Daniel Le Roy, who, with his associates, had directed the same to be sold.
Read the full summary
Bill for specific contract of a sale of lands ; and plea of the statute of frauds interposed. No answer accompanied the plea. The bill showed a sale of certain lots in the city of New-York: and among them, some struck off to, the defendant Daniel Le Roy, who, with his associates, had directed the same to be sold. The latter, with other persons associated with him, contracted to sell and did sell the complainant the benefit of the contract, by substituting him as the bidder and purchaser, upon his agreeing to give them his note for twenty-six hundred and sixty dollars as a premium or advance ;…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor:
It is very properly conceded by the defendant’s counsel that if the auctioneer’s receipt for the ten per cent, deposit contains the whole of the contract which it is sought to have specifically performed, that then it is not a case within the statute of frauds and a plea of the statute cannot be supported.
When a bill sets forth a contract in writing, alleged to be signed by the defendant or his authorized agent, a plea of the statute, averring that there is no writing subscribed by the party or his authorized agent is inadmissible, because it is merely denying what is…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Sharp v. ReissnerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1881
- Kratz v. StockeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1868
- Hubbell v. De LandU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin · 1882
- Edison Electric Light Co. v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1893
- W. A. Benson & Co. v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1873