I. Frank & Co. v. Eltringham

65 Miss. 281
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1887·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Campbell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The note or memorandum of the bargain is not sufficient under-§ 1295 of the Code. It fails to show who is seller and who is buyer. It is impossible to determine from the writing whether the appellants agreed to buy from the appellee or vice versa.

[284]*284While the requirement of the statute is that only some note or memorandum of the bargain shall be signed by the party to be charged, it must show the substantial terms of the bargain, so that it may be seen and understood from the writing, and .without the aid of parol testimony ; for to admit that to supply an essential part of the contract would defeat the object of the statute. The writing must distinguish between the buyer and seller. The memorandum in this case would be equally applicable to an action by I. Frank & Co. against Eltringham.

Reversed and remanded.

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

I. Frank & Co. v. Eltringham, 65 Miss. 281 (Mich. 1887).

65 Miss. 281 (I. Frank & Co. v. Eltringham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ludke Electric Co. v. Vicksburg Towing Co.
127 So. 2d 851 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1961)
Parrott v. Dickson
148 S.E. 704 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1929)
Gilmore v. Wingate
190 P. 571 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1920)
Rector Provision Co. v. Sauer
69 Miss. 235 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1891)