Elliot v. Barrett

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Elliot v. Barrett

10 N.E. 820, 144 Mass. 256, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 158

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 23, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 10 N.E. 820 (Elliot v. Barrett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elliot v. Barrett, 10 N.E. 820, 144 Mass. 256, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 158 (Mass. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

There was no memorandum signed by the defendant, “ or by some person thereunto by him lawfully authorized,” as required by the statute of frauds. Pub. Sts. a. 78, § 1. Hannaford made no memorandum until after the defendant had contracted to sell the land to another purchaser, and had so informed Hannaford; whereby his authority ceased. Moreover, the contract as made by Hannaford was not expressed in either memorandum. The terms of sale were omitted. If Hannaford was authorized to make, in behalf of the defendant, the contract as testified to by him, he was not authorized to make a memorandum of it which differed in [258]*258respect to the terms of sale. Morton v. Dean, 13 Met. 385. Coddington v. Goddard, 16 Gray, 436, 443, 445. Dodd v. Farlow, 11 Allen, 426. Boardman v. Spooner, 13 Allen, 353. These objections are sufficient to defeat the action, without considering others. Judgment for the defendant.

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

C. Allen, J.

There was no memorandum signed by the defendant, “ or by some person thereunto by him lawfully authorized,” as required by the statute of frauds. Pub. Sts. a. 78, § 1. Hannaford made no memorandum until after the defendant had contracted to sell the land to another purchaser, and had so informed Hannaford; whereby his authority ceased. Moreover, the contract as made by Hannaford was not expressed in either memorandum. The terms of sale were omitted. If Hannaford was authorized to make, in behalf of the defendant, the contract as testified to by him, he was not authorized to make a memorandum of it which differed in [258]*258respect to the terms of sale. Morton v. Dean, 13 Met. 385. Coddington v. Goddard, 16 Gray, 436, 443, 445. Dodd v. Farlow, 11 Allen, 426. Boardman v. Spooner, 13 Allen, 353. These objections are sufficient to defeat the action, without considering others. Judgment for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 N.E. 820, 144 Mass. 256, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliot-v-barrett-mass-1887.

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack