Rahm v. Klerner
| Citation | 99 Va. 10,37 S.E. 292 |
| Parties | RAHM. v. KLERNER et al. |
| Decision Date | 13 December 1900 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
FRAUDS, STATUTE OF—SUFFICIENCY OF WRITING.
Plaintiff in an action for breach of contract alleged that defendants employed him to sell goods on commission for one year In the Southern states. The contract, which was evidenced by letters, did not specify the territory in which he was to sell, except that defendants stated in one of their letters to him that the "parties carrying our line in your territory" were certain designated persons in seven Southern states named, but whether he had the right to sell in four other states commonly known as Southern states was not stated. Held that, the territory in which he had the right to sell being one of the essential terms of the contract of employment, the letters did not show a completed contract in writing, required by the statute of frauds (Code, § 2840, cl. 7), requiring agreements not to be performed within one year to be in writing expressing the essential terms thereof.
Appeal from circuit court of city of Richmond.
Action by F. H. Rahm against H. Klerner & Sons. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Coke & Pickrell, for appellant.
Smith, Moncure & Gordon, for appellees.
This is an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiff in error to recover damages for breach of an alleged contract by which the defendants had agreed to employ the plaintiff as agent to sell their furniture upon commission in a certain territory.
As the agreement was not to be performed within a year, it was necessary, under the statute of frauds, that it, or some memorandum thereof, should be in writing. Clause 7, § 2840, Code. To prove his case, the plaintiff introduced in evidence a correspondence between himself and the defendants in reference to his employment. The court being of opinion that the letters submitted to the jury did not show a completed contract, so instructed them, and they found a verdict for the defendants. This action of the court is assigned as error.
It appears that on the 3d day of December, 1897, the plaintiff, who was in the service of the defendants, wrote to them as follows;
W. E. Wimpy, Savannah, Ga.
To this letter the defendants, on the 6th of the month, replied as follows:
On the 11th of that month the plaintiff wrote the following letter to the defendants:
On the 24th of the same month the plaintiff claims to have written and mailed the following letter to the defendants, the receipt of which is denied by them:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harper v. Pauley
...except it need not state the consideration.' Point 2, Syllabus, Bradley Co. v. Moore, 91 W.Va. 77, 112 S.E. 236. See Rahm v. Klerner, 99 Va. 10, 37 S.E. 292. The rule requiring certainty as to every essential element of such a writing requires that the description of real estate contained i......
-
In re Banks Auto Parts, Inc.
...therein referred to, the essential terms of the contract, the writing does not take the case out of the statute." Rahm v. Klerner, 99 Va. 10, 37 S.E. 292, 293 (1900). "However, the signed paper does not have to refer to the other paper as such if it appears the other paper and nothing else ......
-
In re LCS Homes, Inc.
...and be signed by the party to be charged thereby. Reynolds v. Dixon, 187 Va. 101, 106, 46 S.E.2d 6, 9 (1948); see Rahm v. Klerner, 99 Va. 10, 14, 37 S.E. 292, 293 (1900). That is, a memorandum is sufficient if it contains or makes reference to some other writing containing the names of the ......
-
Moorman v. Blackstock, Inc.
...to, the essential terms of the contract, such writings do not take the case out of the statute of frauds. Rahm v. Klerner & Sons, 99 Va. 10, 13-14, 37 S.E. 292, 293 (1900); see also Reynolds, 187 Va. at 107, 46 S.E.2d at In Gibbens, this Court addressed whether the statute of frauds prohibi......