Benedict v. Beebee
11 Johns. 145
Opinion
The plaintiff having expressly abandoned all claim for damages for a breach of the contract as to the farm, all objections as to the statute of frauds are removed. A promise or undertaking by the defendant to pay the plaintiff for the improvements made by the deienxfant on the land, is not void under the statute. It was so decided by this court in the case of Freer v. Hardenbergh. (5 Johns. Rep. 272.)
The judgment below must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Benedict v. Beebee, 11 Johns. 145 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1814).
11 Johns. 145 (Benedict v. Beebee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Jenkins v. Brown
173 S.E. 257 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
South Baltimore Co. v. Muhlbach
1 L.R.A. 507 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1888)
Babcock v. Read
18 Jones & S. 126 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1884)
Cassell v. Collins
23 Ala. 676 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1853)
Moore v. Ross
11 N.H. 547 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1841)
Lombard v. Ruggles
9 Me. 62 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1832)
Lower v. Winters
7 Cow. 263 (New York Supreme Court, 1827)