Ridgley v. Stillwell

28 Mo. 400
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 15, 1859
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 28 Mo. 400 (Ridgley v. Stillwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ridgley v. Stillwell, 28 Mo. 400 (Mo. 1859).

Opinion

Richardson, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

By the statute of frauds, the estate in this case, being created by parol, had only the force and effect of an estate at will, (1 R. C. 1855, p. 806,) which is construed to operate as a tenancy from year to year. (Kerr v. Clark, 19 Mo. 132.)

[404]*404The theory of the defence which the defendant proposed to make is, that part performance of the parol contract took it out of the statute and entitled him in equity to a specific performance; but this proceeding was for an unlawful de-tainer, which was necessarily commenced before a justice of the peace, who had no power to inquire and decide whether the contract ought to be enforced and to give the equitable relief the defendant sought. If the defendant was entitled to have the parol agreement executed, his course was to have enjoined, in a court of competent jurisdiction, the proceedings before the justice until his equity could be determined.

The judgment will be affirmed, with the concurrence of the other judges.

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

Related

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Smith
392 S.W.3d 446 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2013)
Sanders v. Brooks and Oberhelman
183 S.W.2d 353 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1944)
Morris v. Davis
66 S.W.2d 883 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1933)
State Ex Rel. v. Taylor Hartmann
242 S.W. 997 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1922)
Womach v. Jenkins
107 S.W. 423 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1908)
Kroeger v. Bohrer
91 S.W. 159 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
Ray v. Blackman
97 S.W. 212 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
Ver Steeg v. Becker-Moore Paint Co.
80 S.W. 346 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1904)
Cunningham v. Roush
57 S.W. 769 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1900)
Pitman v. 16 To 1 Mining Co.
78 Mo. App. 438 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1899)
DeMoss v. Economy Furniture & Carpet Co.
74 Mo. App. 117 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1898)
Pacific Express Co. v. Tyler Office-Fixture Co.
72 Mo. App. 151 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1897)
Tiefenbrun v. Tiefenbrun
65 Mo. App. 253 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1896)
Phillips v. Burrows
64 Mo. App. 351 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1896)
Hosli v. Yokel
58 Mo. App. 169 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1894)
Orr v. McCurdy
34 Mo. App. 418 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1889)
Willis v. Stevens
24 Mo. App. 494 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1887)
Enlow v. Newland
22 Mo. App. 581 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1886)
Nance v. Metcalf
19 Mo. App. 183 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1885)
Winters v. Cherry
78 Mo. 344 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 Mo. 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ridgley-v-stillwell-mo-1859.