Legal Opinion

Olt v. Lohnas

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1858PublishedCited by 6 opinions

APPEAL EEOM TAZEWELL. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiffs below against the defendant below, to recover damages for the refusal of the defendant to allow the plaintiffs to take possession of, and occupy, a farm. The defendant filed a plea of general issue, and also a plea of the statute of frauds, that the contract sued on was by parol, and was not to be performed within one year from the making thereof.

Read the full summary

APPEAL EEOM TAZEWELL. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiffs below against the defendant below, to recover damages for the refusal of the defendant to allow the plaintiffs to take possession of, and occupy, a farm. The defendant filed a plea of general issue, and also a plea of the statute of frauds, that the contract sued on was by parol, and was not to be performed within one year from the making thereof. The following agreement was made by the parties: That the contract was entered into in the month of October, 1856, by which Olt agreed to let the plaintiffs have and…

1Opinion of the Court

Catón, C. J.

This action was brought upon a parol agreement, made in October, 1856, for the lease of a farm for one year from the first of March, 1857, and the only question submitted to this court is, whether this agreement is made void by the statute of frauds. That statute says, that no action shall be maintained “ upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof, unless the promise or agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith,…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Cochran v. WardIndiana Court of Appeals · 1892
  2. Wheeler v. Frankenthal & Bro.Illinois Supreme Court · 1875
  3. Wickson v. Monarch Cycle Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Jellett v. RhodeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
  5. Cooney v. MurrayAppellate Court of Illinois · 1892

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API