Carven v. Forrest

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Carven v. Forrest

307 N.E.2d 864, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 798

DecidedMarch 8, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 307 N.E.2d 864 (Carven v. Forrest) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carven v. Forrest, 307 N.E.2d 864, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 798 (Mass. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In this action of contract the defendants demurred to each of the counts in the plaintiff’s amended declaration on the ground that the contract declared upon was within the Statute of Frauds (G. L. c. 259, § 1; Fifth) and that the memorandum annexed to each count was insufficient to satisfy that statute. The demurrer was sustained, and the only question before us is the sufficiency of that memorandum to satisfy the statute. See Weiner v. Lowenstein, 314 Mass. 642, 645-646 (1943); Siegel v. Knott, 316 Mass. 526, 527-528 (1944). The memorandum should have identified the purchaser, either by name or by description; it did not do so. It is, therefore, insufficient. Lewis v. Wood, 153 Mass. 321, 322 (1891). Williams v. Commercial Trust Co. 276 Mass. 508, 517 (1931). Cluff v. Picardi, 331 Mass. 320, 323 (1954). See Pearlstein v. Novitch, 239 Mass. 228, 230 (1921); Cousbelis v. Alexander, 315 Mass. 729, 730 (1944).

Exceptions overruled.

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

In this action of contract the defendants demurred to each of the counts in the plaintiff’s amended declaration on the ground that the contract declared upon was within the Statute of Frauds (G. L. c. 259, § 1; Fifth) and that the memorandum annexed to each count was insufficient to satisfy that statute. The demurrer was sustained, and the only question before us is the sufficiency of that memorandum to satisfy the statute. See Weiner v. Lowenstein, 314 Mass. 642, 645-646 (1943); Siegel v. Knott, 316 Mass. 526, 527-528 (1944). The memorandum should have identified the purchaser, either by name or by description; it did not do so. It is, therefore, insufficient. Lewis v. Wood, 153 Mass. 321, 322 (1891). Williams v. Commercial Trust Co. 276 Mass. 508, 517 (1931). Cluff v. Picardi, 331 Mass. 320, 323 (1954). See Pearlstein v. Novitch, 239 Mass. 228, 230 (1921); Cousbelis v. Alexander, 315 Mass. 729, 730 (1944).

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 N.E.2d 864, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carven-v-forrest-massappct-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack