McWhorter v. McMahan

3 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 86, 1843 N.Y. LEXIS 305
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in McWhorter v. McMahan. Read the opinion of the Court — 10 Paige Ch. 386
New York Court of Chancery·Decided November 21, 1843·Published

Opinion

The chancellor decided in this case, that under the present statute of frauds it was necessary a contract for the sale of land should not only be in writing and signed by the party who is attempted to be charged upon such contract, but it must be subscribed by the vendor also. That such a contract need not be signed by the vendor personally; but it will be sufficient if it is signed by an agent duly authorized. And that it is not necessary the authority of such agent should be in writing. That in a suit for the specifiic performance of a contract to purchase land, signed by the agent of the vendor, it is only necessary for the vendor to establish the fact, by parol, that the person signing the contract as agent for him was lawfully authorized to sign as such agent.

Decretal order of tho vico chancellor of the eighth circuit affirmed with costs, and proceedings remitted.

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

McWhorter v. McMahan, 3 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 86, 1843 N.Y. LEXIS 305 (N.Y. 1843).

3 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 86 (McWhorter v. McMahan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.