Bigelow v. Armes
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT OE THE DISTRICT OE COLUMBIA. Bill in equity to enforcer specific performance of an ■ agreement to convey real estate. The following were the facts as. stated by the court: On the 22d of November, 18 76, the parties to this suit made and signed the following memorandum in pencil: November 22d, 1876. “I propose to give my house on 8th street, subject to $2,000, for one house on Delaware avenue, and one farm in Fairfax Co., Va., and $525 cash.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT OE THE DISTRICT OE COLUMBIA. Bill in equity to enforcer specific performance of an ■ agreement to convey real estate. The following were the facts as. stated by the court: On the 22d of November, 18 76, the parties to this suit made and signed the following memorandum in pencil: November 22d, 1876. “I propose to give my house on 8th street, subject to $2,000, for one house on Delaware avenue, and one farm in Fairfax Co., Va., and $525 cash. “ Geo. Armes. ' “ Accepted: Otis Bigelow.” Both parties fully understood at the time that the property referred to was that…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.'.After stating the facts- as above, he continued:
Upon these facts,' in our opinion, it was the duty of the couft below to enter the decree it did requiring a completion of the performance of the contract by Bigelow. Whether, in view of the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, the memorandum signed by both parties was of itself sufficient to support the bill, is a question Ave' do not think it important to discuss, because, if the memorandum is not enough, the terms of the contract have been otherwise clearly established by the evidence, and there has been…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Riggles v. ErneySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Gilbert v. SleeperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- White v. PooleSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1906
- Barton v. DunlapIdaho Supreme Court · 1901
- Wheeling Bridge & Terminal Ry. Co. v. Reymann Brewing Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1898
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.