Starkweather v. Bentley
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.
(after stating the facts). Plaintiff sets up the terms of the parol contract, alleged part performance on his part, and asked for specific performance of the same. He is hardly in position to raise the question of the statute of frauds. But be yond this, his bill of complaint was a writing signed by him. Defendants admitted the making of the parol agreement, and, without raising the question of the statute of frauds by their cross-bill, seek its foreclosure. They are hardly in position to here urge the statute of frauds. Quite likely had they admitted the making of the parol agreement, and in…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Barrett v. McAllisterWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1890
- Jones v. LloydIllinois Supreme Court · 1886
- Lozon v. McKayMichigan Supreme Court · 1918
- Patton v. ChamberlainMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Hubbell v. OhlerMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Colonial Brick Co. v. ZimmermanMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
- McDonald v. Houseman-Spitzley Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1930