Peter Kerr v. Finch
| Citation | 135 P. 1165,25 Idaho 32 |
| Parties | PETER KERR et al., Appellants, v. J. O. FINCH, Respondent |
| Decision Date | 18 October 1913 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
STATUTE OF FRAUDS-CONTRACT FOR SALE OF GRAIN-MUTUALITY OF CONTRACT.
1. The statute of frauds as embodied in sec. 6009 of the Rev. Codes and construed in Houser v. Hobart, 22 Idaho 735, 127 P. 997 43 L.R.A., N. S., 410, examined and considered, and the rule announced in the Houser-Hobart case reaffirmed and followed.
2. Sec 6009, Rev. Codes of this state, announces more than a mere rule of evidence. It is a substantive law dealing with contracts affecting personal property and commercial transactions. It deals with the origin and basis of a cause of action, and the rule of evidence it embodies is only an incident to the remedy under the statute.
3. Precedent is and should be strongly persuasive with the courts but never controlling, and when the reason for it ceases to exist, or it fails to accomplish justice, it should be disregarded.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District for Idaho County. Hon. Edger C. Steele, Judge.
Action for breach of contract. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded in favor of respondent.
W. N. Scales, for Appellants.
I am aware that in Houser v. Hobart, 22 Idaho 735, 127 P. 997, 43 L. R. A., N. S., 410, this court has decided that contracts of this kind must be signed by both parties. Other questions decided in Houser v. Hobart are not involved here, because this contract is definite and specific.
It seems that with the exception of the Michigan cases and Houser v. Hobart, the authorities in England and the United States are practically all contrary to the rule announced by this court. See Murray v. Crawford, 28 L. R. A., N. S., 680, and the very exhaustive note thereunder, in which the rule contended for by appellant is sustained, as the editor of the note remarks, with the almost unbroken current of authority.
In 43 L. R. A., N. S., 410 (Houser v. Hobart), there is another exhaustive note supplementing the one last referred to.
W. H. Casady and E. M. Griffith, for Respondent, file no brief.
This case involves the validity of a contract for the sale of grain signed by the vendor only.
The same question is argued in this case that was considered in Houser v. Hobart, 22 Idaho 735, 127 P. 997, 43 L. R. A., N. S., 410. It is urged that the construction placed by this court in that case on sec. 6009, Rev. Codes, is contrary to the overwhelming weight of authority, and we are for that reason asked to reconsider the question there passed upon.
We are alive to the fact that the holding of that case is contrary to the current of authority, but we are equally satisfied that this multitude of decisions rests upon precedent alone and not upon reason. The rule of precedent relied upon, it seems to us, only accomplishes injustice and serves as an aid to duplicity, fraud and deception, and we are not disposed to lend our approval to such a rule in this state. The courts seem to have generally thought that "the party charged," as used in the statute of frauds, refers only to the defendant in an action brought on the contract, but we have not been able to so understand our statute. The language is, "the agreement is invalid, unless the same or some note or memorandum...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leaf v. Codd
...was barred by statute of frauds. (C. S., secs. 7974, 7976; Seder v. Grand Lodge, A. O. U. W., 35 Idaho 277, 206 P. 1052; Kerr v. Finch, 25 Idaho 32, 135 P. 1165.) of agent to bind principal must be in writing. (C. S., sec. 7976; Houser v. Hobart, supra; Nason v. Lingle, 143 Cal. 363, 77 P. ......
-
C. Forsman Real Estate Co., Inc. v. Hatch
...when our statute was adopted. At that time there were two cases, Houser v. Hobart, 22 Idaho 735, 127 P. 997 (1912) and Kerr v. Finch, 25 Idaho 32, 135 P. 1165 (1913), which interpreted the statutory language 'party to be charged.' Both of these cases involved the statute of frauds provision......
-
Bethke v. Idaho Sav. & Loan Ass'n
...v. Millsaps, 197 Tenn. 295, 271 S.W.2d 857 (1954).8 Higer v. Hansen, 67 Idaho 45, 64, 170 P.2d 411, 423 (1946); see also Kerr v. Finch, 25 Idaho 32, 135 P. 1165 (1913).9 9 Idaho 740, 743-744, 76 P. 318, 319 (1904); accord, Abbott v. Continental National Bank of Lincoln, 169 Neb. 147, 98 N.W......
-
Hoffman v. S V Co., Inc.
...memorandum. Houser has consistently been reaffirmed by this Court. Rouker v. Richardson, 49 Idaho 337, 288 P. 167 (1930); Kerr v. Finch, 25 Idaho 32, 135 P. 1165 (1913). Accord, C. Forsman Real Estate Co. v. Hatch, 97 Idaho 511, 547 P.2d 1116 Although no particular form of language or instr......