Barry v. Wixon

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Barry v. Wixon

46 A. 42, 22 R.I. 16, 1900 R.I. LEXIS 39

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMarch 28, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 46 A. 42 (Barry v. Wixon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barry v. Wixon, 46 A. 42, 22 R.I. 16, 1900 R.I. LEXIS 39 (R.I. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) We do not think that the alleged representation that the defendant had an agreement with the mortgagee by which the mortgage could run 99 years, if desired, or so long as the interest on it was paid, is sufficient to sustain the action. If it was made and was relied on by the plaintiffs as a material inducement to the purchase of the land, they should have had it put into writing and made a part of the contract of purchase of the land from the defendant, as required by the statute of frauds.

But, apart from the consideration that the representation is not in writing, the testimony shows that the plaintiffs did not tender the interest on the mortgage when it became due, and, therefore, it does not appear that the mortgage sale by which they were deprived of the property was due to a breach of the representation.

New trial denied, and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division with direction to enter judgment on nonsuit for the defendant for costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

(1) We do not think that the alleged representation that the defendant had an agreement with the mortgagee by which the mortgage could run 99 years, if desired, or so long as the interest on it was paid, is sufficient to sustain the action. If it was made and was relied on by the plaintiffs as a material inducement to the purchase of the land, they should have had it put into writing and made a part of the contract of purchase of the land from the defendant, as required by the statute of frauds.

But, apart from the consideration that the representation is not in writing, the testimony shows that the plaintiffs did not tender the interest on the mortgage when it became due, and, therefore, it does not appear that the mortgage sale by which they were deprived of the property was due to a breach of the representation.

New trial denied, and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division with direction to enter judgment on nonsuit for the defendant for costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A. 42, 22 R.I. 16, 1900 R.I. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barry-v-wixon-ri-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack