Legal Opinion

Ducett v. Wolf

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1890PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Beilly, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCahill, J.

This was an action of assumpsit for the purchase price of lands claimed to have been sold by the plaintiff to defendant. The plea was the general issue. The court directed a verdict for the defendant.

The sole question in the case is as to whether the alleged agreement for the purchase and sale of the land was within the statute of frauds.

The facts necessary to be stated are as follows: On Saturday evening, March 23, 1889, the defendant, Balthazar Wolf, called on Julia Ducett, the plaintiff, for the purpose of purchasing the land in question. After some time spent in bargaining, Mrs. Ducett…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Allen v. AtkinsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1870
  2. Liddle v. NeedhamMichigan Supreme Court · 1878

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bagaeff v. ProkopikMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Adler v. KatusMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Kroll v. Diamond Match Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Palmer v. WheelerOregon Supreme Court · 1971

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

Powered by the Exa API