Dougherty v. Catlett

Appellate Court of Illinois

Dougherty v. Catlett

29 Ill. App. 294, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 118

DecidedNovember 30, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Ill. App. 294 (Dougherty v. Catlett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dougherty v. Catlett, 29 Ill. App. 294, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 118 (Ill. Ct. App. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Wall, P. J.

This case was here at the May term, 1886, and the opinion then rendered will he found in 21 Ill. App. 116.

After the case was reversed the plaintiff tiled an amended declaration in which, after stating the contract of sale from defendant to the plaintiff referred to in the former opinion, it was averred that the plaintiff sold and conveyed the undivided one-half of said property to one McCabe, and that afterward, while in possession of the remaining half, the plaintiff, by verbal agreement, sold said remaining half to defendant and surrendered possession to him for the snm of §3,500, and that defendant had since sold and conveyed the premises to a third person for the sum of <Bé,000 with the knowledge of the plaintiff. The defendant interposed a plea of the statute of frauds, to which plaintiff demurred.

The demurrer was overruled and judgment was rendered against the plaintiff for costs. We are of opinion that the amendment of the declaration has not obviated the objection that the transaction is within the statute of frauds, and that the court properly held the plea a valid defense. The judgment will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Wall, P. J.

This case was here at the May term, 1886, and the opinion then rendered will he found in 21 Ill. App. 116.

After the case was reversed the plaintiff tiled an amended declaration in which, after stating the contract of sale from defendant to the plaintiff referred to in the former opinion, it was averred that the plaintiff sold and conveyed the undivided one-half of said property to one McCabe, and that afterward, while in possession of the remaining half, the plaintiff, by verbal agreement, sold said remaining half to defendant and surrendered possession to him for the snm of §3,500, and that defendant had since sold and conveyed the premises to a third person for the sum of <Bé,000 with the knowledge of the plaintiff. The defendant interposed a plea of the statute of frauds, to which plaintiff demurred.

The demurrer was overruled and judgment was rendered against the plaintiff for costs. We are of opinion that the amendment of the declaration has not obviated the objection that the transaction is within the statute of frauds, and that the court properly held the plea a valid defense. The judgment will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Ill. App. 294, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dougherty-v-catlett-illappct-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack