Legal Opinion

Ringer v. Holtzclaw

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided December 6, 1892PublishedCited by 56 opinions

Error to Linn Circuit Court. — Hon. Gh D. Burgess, Judge. ' The memorandum of the contract is sufficient. It does not purport to be a complete expression of the entire contract. The matter omitted may be supplied by parol evidence. O’Niel v. Crain, 67 Mo. 250; Lash v. Parlin, 78 Mo. 391; Ellis v. Bray, 79 Mo. 227; Hollins v. Claybrook, 22 Mo. 407; Mass v. Green, 41 Mo. 389; 1 Grreenleaf on Evidence [10 Ed.] see. 284a. The memorandum was insufficient.

Read the full summary

Error to Linn Circuit Court. — Hon. Gh D. Burgess, Judge. ' The memorandum of the contract is sufficient. It does not purport to be a complete expression of the entire contract. The matter omitted may be supplied by parol evidence. O’Niel v. Crain, 67 Mo. 250; Lash v. Parlin, 78 Mo. 391; Ellis v. Bray, 79 Mo. 227; Hollins v. Claybrook, 22 Mo. 407; Mass v. Green, 41 Mo. 389; 1 Grreenleaf on Evidence [10 Ed.] see. 284a. The memorandum was insufficient. All the essential elements of the agreement must appear from it. Williams v. Morris, 95 U. S. 444; Scarrett v. Church, 7 Mo. App. 174; Schroder…

1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.

This is a suit to enforce specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale and purchase of lots 7, 8, 9 and 10, in block 184, in the town of Marceline, Linn county.

Plaintiff alleged that defendant had paid $25 on the trade and owed $975, and that a memorandum of the agreement was reduced to writing and signed by defendant.

The defense was a general denial, statute of frauds, and a verbal contract, whereby defendant averred he had an option on said lots to be taken or declined on April 2, 1888; that if he accepted them plaintiff was to furnish a satisfactory abstract and deliver a good…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Glass v. HulbertMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
  2. Williams v. MorrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  3. Grafton v. CummingsSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  4. North & Co. v. Mendel & BrotherSupreme Court of Georgia · 1884
  5. Lee v. HillsIndiana Supreme Court · 1879

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

3Cited by56 opinions

  1. Kelly v. ThueySupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
  2. Hill v. Rich Hill Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1893
  3. Boyd v. PaulSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
  4. Moss v. FitchSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
  5. Blue Valley Creamery Co. v. Consolidated Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1936

51 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