Fox v. Hutton
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Mississippi Chancery Court, Chickasawba District; Archer Wheatley, Chancellor; 1. The oral agreement here was collateral to the written agreement, and did not vary nor contradict it, and is not within the statute of frauds. 10 R. C. L. 1037. Appellee granted the extension of time, and a strict performance of the contract was waived by him.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Mississippi Chancery Court, Chickasawba District; Archer Wheatley, Chancellor; 1. The oral agreement here was collateral to the written agreement, and did not vary nor contradict it, and is not within the statute of frauds. 10 R. C. L. 1037. Appellee granted the extension of time, and a strict performance of the contract was waived by him. Appellee nlade no effort to assist appellant in perfecting arrangements for a loan, but actually prevented appellant from obtaining the money, and there was no breach by appellant, and appellee can not rightfully complain of the failure to…
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
This action was begun by the appellant against the appellee for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of a tract of land containing 120 acres in Mississippi County.
The appellant set out the contract, which was dated October 31, 1917. After describing the lands and reciting that appellee agreed to sell and- appellant to buy same, the contract provides as follows: “It is herein stipulated and agreed that a copy of 'this contract shall this day be deposited in the Bank of Manila, with a certified check for $500, executed by said Dr. V. R. Fox, payable to' the order of J. M. Hutton,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Henley v. EnglerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
3Cited by4 opinions
- Manley v. HoltCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1942
- Adams v. RhodesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
- Myers v. SniderSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1956
- Stone v. WhitmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936