Murphy v. Adams

Knox County Circuit Court

Murphy v. Adams

19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 405, 8 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 583, 1906 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 233

DecidedOctober 12, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 405 (Murphy v. Adams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Knox County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Murphy v. Adams, 19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 405, 8 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 583, 1906 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 233 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The record in this case discloses that the work performed by defendant in error’s intestate was performed by him under and in pursuance of a contract, by the terms of which he was to receive a credit of one dollar per day upon the purchase price of a certain dwelling house then to be erected by the plaintiff in error for said defendant in error’s intestate, and which was to be sold and conveyed to him for the sum of $1,050. This contract was verbal, and by reason of the statute requiring' a contract for the sale of real estate to be in writing, could, not be enforced in the courts of this state. But, notwithstanding that fact, this court is clearly of the opinion that if the plaintiff in error abandoned [406]*406that contract and refused to go forward with the same, the defendant in error could recover for the estate he represents, the value of the services rendered by his intestate in pursuance of that contract; but if, on the other hand, the defendant in error’s intestate failed and refused to go forward with that work and abandoned the same through his own fault and of his own motion, then we do not think he could recover. There is practically no evidence in this record disclosing which of these parties repudiated the contract. The evidence is sufficient as to the services and the value thereof, but it is not sufficient to sustain this verdict upon the theory that the plaintiff in error abandoned the contract, and for that reason and that reason only, it is against the manifest weight of the evidence and is not sustained thereby, and the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Exceptions of defendant in error noted.

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

PER CURIAM.

The record in this case discloses that the work performed by defendant in error’s intestate was performed by him under and in pursuance of a contract, by the terms of which he was to receive a credit of one dollar per day upon the purchase price of a certain dwelling house then to be erected by the plaintiff in error for said defendant in error’s intestate, and which was to be sold and conveyed to him for the sum of $1,050. This contract was verbal, and by reason of the statute requiring' a contract for the sale of real estate to be in writing, could, not be enforced in the courts of this state. But, notwithstanding that fact, this court is clearly of the opinion that if the plaintiff in error abandoned [406]*406that contract and refused to go forward with the same, the defendant in error could recover for the estate he represents, the value of the services rendered by his intestate in pursuance of that contract; but if, on the other hand, the defendant in error’s intestate failed and refused to go forward with that work and abandoned the same through his own fault and of his own motion, then we do not think he could recover. There is practically no evidence in this record disclosing which of these parties repudiated the contract. The evidence is sufficient as to the services and the value thereof, but it is not sufficient to sustain this verdict upon the theory that the plaintiff in error abandoned the contract, and for that reason and that reason only, it is against the manifest weight of the evidence and is not sustained thereby, and the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Exceptions of defendant in error noted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 405, 8 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 583, 1906 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-adams-ohcirctknox-1906.