Ray v. Card
| Decision Date | 28 June 1899 |
| Citation | 43 A. 846,21 R.I. 362 |
| Parties | RAY v. CARD et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Bill by James S. Ray against Esther B. Card and others. Bill dismissed.
Cooke & Angell, for complainant.
Charles E. Salisbury, for respondents.
Our opinion is that the letter of April 11, 1898, written by the respondent Lucy E. Whipple to the complainant, assuming it to have been in other respects a sufficient note or memorandum of sale to answer the requirements of the statute of frauds, was insufficient, in that it does not describe the laud. In 22 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 968, it is stated that, while resort may be had to parol evidence to fit the description to the land, such evidence is inadmissible where there is no description. Lee v. Stone, 21 R. I. —, 42 Atl. 717, was a case of the former class. In the present instance, the letter contains no description whatever of the land, but merely refers to it as "that lot." For this reason the bill must be dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Corrado v. Montuori
...the description can apply to but one parcel of property owned by the seller, the property may then be identified by parol." In Ray v. Card, 21 R. I. 362, 43 A. 846 ("that lot" without other description), Cunha V. Callery, 29 R. I. 230, 69 A. 1001, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 616, 132 Am. St. Rep. 8......
-
E. Greenwich Cove Builders, LLC v. Schnaier
...would be clear and definite enough to satisfy the statute of frauds and the requirements[.]"). In contrast, the Court in Ray v. Card, 21 R.I. 362, 43 A. 846, 847 (1899) refused to resort to parol evidence for that purpose, but that was because the memorandum contained no description of the ......
-
Sholovitz v. Noorigian
...to the fact that the memorandum failed to specify the width and depth of the lot on which the brick store was situated. In Ray v. Card, 21 R. I. 362, 43 Atl. 846, the court held that a note of an agreement for the sale of land was insufficient to answer the requirements of the statute of fr......
-
Sarro v. Neri
...We are of the opinion that parol evidence was properly admitted to establish such identification. It is true that in Ray v. Card, 21 R.I. 362, 43 A. 846, cited by respondents, resort to such evidence for that purpose was refused but that was because the memorandum contained no description o......