May v. Mohr

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

May v. Mohr

282 S.W.2d 144, 1955 Ky. LEXIS 229

DecidedJune 24, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 282 S.W.2d 144 (May v. Mohr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

May v. Mohr, 282 S.W.2d 144, 1955 Ky. LEXIS 229 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

WADDILL, Commissioner.

This action seeks specific performance of an oral agreement allegedly.made by appel-lee to extend an option held by appellant to purchase a tract of appellee’s realty. The court sustained appellee’s motion1 for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint because the agreement upon which appellant relies was an oral agreement for the conveyance of real estate and was within the' Statute of Frauds. KRS 371.010(6).

The reason assigned by the court for dismissing the action was sufficient. Rhorer v. Rhorer’s Ex’r, Ky., 272 S.W.2d 801; Bitzer v. Moock’s Ex’r and Trustee, Ky., 271 S.W.2d 877; Head v. Schwartz’ Ex’r, 304 Ky. 798, 202 S.W.2d 623. In addition, we have read the depositions taken on discovery which were filed in support of the motion for summary judgment and find that the deposition of the appellánt, Guthrie May, and the deposition of his witness, C. E. Day, fail to show the existence of the oral agreement, upon which the allegations of the complaint were based.

Judgment affirmed.

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

WADDILL, Commissioner.

This action seeks specific performance of an oral agreement allegedly.made by appel-lee to extend an option held by appellant to purchase a tract of appellee’s realty. The court sustained appellee’s motion1 for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint because the agreement upon which appellant relies was an oral agreement for the conveyance of real estate and was within the' Statute of Frauds. KRS 371.010(6).

The reason assigned by the court for dismissing the action was sufficient. Rhorer v. Rhorer’s Ex’r, Ky., 272 S.W.2d 801; Bitzer v. Moock’s Ex’r and Trustee, Ky., 271 S.W.2d 877; Head v. Schwartz’ Ex’r, 304 Ky. 798, 202 S.W.2d 623. In addition, we have read the depositions taken on discovery which were filed in support of the motion for summary judgment and find that the deposition of the appellánt, Guthrie May, and the deposition of his witness, C. E. Day, fail to show the existence of the oral agreement, upon which the allegations of the complaint were based.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 S.W.2d 144, 1955 Ky. LEXIS 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/may-v-mohr-kyctapp-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack