Bigelow v. Armes

108 U.S. 10, 1 S. Ct. 83, 27 L. Ed. 631, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1273
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided November 13, 1882·No. 41·Published·Cited by 10 cases

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

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

108 U.S. 10 (Bigelow v. Armes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nance v. Gatlin Cannon
2 Tenn. App. 73 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1925)
Hogan v. Swayze
237 P. 1097 (Utah Supreme Court, 1925)
White v. Poole
65 A. 255 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1906)
Barton v. Dunlap
66 P. 832 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1901)
Cooper v. Cooper
6 Ohio N.P. 99 (Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, 1898)
Pawling v. Pawling
33 N.Y.S. 780 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)
Riggles v. Erney
154 U.S. 244 (Supreme Court, 1894)
Gilbert v. Sleeper
12 P. 172 (California Supreme Court, 1886)