Ossage v. Foley

Ohio Court of Appeals

Ossage v. Foley

153 N.E. 117, 20 Ohio App. 16, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 89, 1923 Ohio App. LEXIS 188

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 16, 1923

Docket2163

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 153 N.E. 117 (Ossage v. Foley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ossage v. Foley, 153 N.E. 117, 20 Ohio App. 16, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 89, 1923 Ohio App. LEXIS 188 (Ohio Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

BUCHWALTER, J.

Epitomized Opinion

The action in the Hamilton Common Pleas *90 was to recover damages for failure of Foley to execute and deliver to Ossage a lease for certain lands in accordance with an oral agreement claimed to have been made between Ossage and Foley.

Attorneys—Lewis W. Diemer, T. N, Maxe-don, for Ossage; Dempsey & Dempsey; Creed & Creed, for Foley; all of Cincinnati.

It was averred by Ossage that the agreement provided for a lease for five years with privilege of renewal and purchase. No written agreement was executed. The Common Pleas sustained Foley’s demurrer to the amended petition, and Ossage not desiring to plead further, judgment of dismissal was rendered. The Court of Appeals held:

Since the action is founded upon an oral agreement concerning an interest in land, and also that it was not to be performed within one year; by the Statute of Frauds, 8621 GC, no action can be brought by Ossage to charge Foley unless there was a written note or memorandum of the agreement upon which the action is based. Since the agreement was never reduced to writing, unless it could have been taken out of said statute by part performance, it is within the Statute of Frauds and void. But Ossage has seen fit to choose an action at law for damages rather than an equitable action; therefore the doctrine of part performance does not here apply. Finding no error the judgment of Common Pleas was affirmed.

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

BUCHWALTER, J.

Epitomized Opinion

The action in the Hamilton Common Pleas *90 was to recover damages for failure of Foley to execute and deliver to Ossage a lease for certain lands in accordance with an oral agreement claimed to have been made between Ossage and Foley.

Attorneys—Lewis W. Diemer, T. N, Maxe-don, for Ossage; Dempsey & Dempsey; Creed & Creed, for Foley; all of Cincinnati.

It was averred by Ossage that the agreement provided for a lease for five years with privilege of renewal and purchase. No written agreement was executed. The Common Pleas sustained Foley’s demurrer to the amended petition, and Ossage not desiring to plead further, judgment of dismissal was rendered. The Court of Appeals held:

Since the action is founded upon an oral agreement concerning an interest in land, and also that it was not to be performed within one year; by the Statute of Frauds, 8621 GC, no action can be brought by Ossage to charge Foley unless there was a written note or memorandum of the agreement upon which the action is based. Since the agreement was never reduced to writing, unless it could have been taken out of said statute by part performance, it is within the Statute of Frauds and void. But Ossage has seen fit to choose an action at law for damages rather than an equitable action; therefore the doctrine of part performance does not here apply. Finding no error the judgment of Common Pleas was affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 N.E. 117, 20 Ohio App. 16, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 89, 1923 Ohio App. LEXIS 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ossage-v-foley-ohioctapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack