Legal Opinion

Schmidt v. Weston

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 3, 1948No. 31417PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTurner, J.

The case before us is to be settled by the correct answer to the question, “Where a decree for specific performance is sought, may parol evidence be received to correct a discrepancy in the description of the land for which the decree is sought?”

We start with the premise that in an action for specific performance courts may apply but may not supply the description. .No attempt was made to reform the contract.

So far as applicable here, the statute of frauds, Sec7 tion 8621,“General Code, provides as follows:

“No action shall be brought whereby to charge * * * a person * * * upon a contract or…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Wilson v. FisherTexas Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Craig v. ZelianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Cushing v. Monarch Timber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Marriner v. DennisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Martinson v. CruikshankWashington Supreme Court · 1940

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Quarto Mining Co. v. LitmanOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Phillips v. May, Unpublished Decision (11-5-2004)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2004
  3. McGilvery v. ShadelOhio Court of Appeals · 1949
  4. Elkins v. ColburnOhio Court of Appeals · 2019
  5. Hotze, Kuntzler & Co. v. ErskineOhio Court of Appeals · 1954

4 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