Bigelow v. Armes

Supreme Court

Bigelow v. Armes

108 U.S. 10, 1 S. Ct. 83, 27 L. Ed. 631, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1273

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 13, 1882

Docket41

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 108 U.S. 10 (Bigelow v. Armes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bigelow v. Armes, 108 U.S. 10, 1 S. Ct. 83, 27 L. Ed. 631, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1273 (1882).

Pincite

Opinion

*12 Me. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.'

.After stating the facts- as above, he continued:

Upon these facts,' in our opinion, it was the duty of the couft below to enter the decree it did requiring a completion of the performance of the contract by Bigelow. Whether, in view of the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, the memorandum signed by both parties was of itself sufficient to support the bill, is a question Ave' do not think it important to discuss, because, if the memorandum is not enough, the terms of the contract have been otherwise clearly established by the evidence, and there has been full performance by Armes and substantial part performance by Bigelow.

The decree is affirmed.

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

*12 Me. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.'

.After stating the facts- as above, he continued:

Upon these facts,' in our opinion, it was the duty of the couft below to enter the decree it did requiring a completion of the performance of the contract by Bigelow. Whether, in view of the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, the memorandum signed by both parties was of itself sufficient to support the bill, is a question Ave' do not think it important to discuss, because, if the memorandum is not enough, the terms of the contract have been otherwise clearly established by the evidence, and there has been full performance by Armes and substantial part performance by Bigelow.

The decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 U.S. 10, 1 S. Ct. 83, 27 L. Ed. 631, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bigelow-v-armes-scotus-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack