C. B. Howard & Co. v. Innes

Citations

• 253 Pa. 593
• 98 A. 761
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 895

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Sales of real estate — Statute of frauds — Memorandum — Sufficiency—Oral agreements — Conflicting evidence — Case for jury_</p> <p>1. Orally to identify the subject-matter of a contract for the sale of real estate, referred to in a written instrument by general description or through the medium of a recognized name, is essentially different from an attempt by parol evidence to determine and define the subject-matter itself; in one case the name or description is simply applied to the thing in view, while in the other the thing itself is established.</p> <p>3. In an action to recover hand-money paid by plaintiffs to defendant under a contract for the sale of real estate, it appeared that plaintiffs refused to take title, alleging that the deed which defendant had tendered did not comply with the requirements of the contract. Defendant’s counterclaimed for damages for the refusal of plaintiffs to comply with the agreement. Defendant contended that the contract was in writing and offered in evidence a letter signed by plaintiffs and addressed to defendant, reading “Referring to our conversation over the ’phone yesterday in regard to the thirty thousand acres on the head waters of the Elk river in West Virginia which our Mr. Kaye purchased from you last Monday, we think it would be a good plan for our Mr. Kaye to go along with you to Elkins next week, as we are anxious to get all the maps and descriptions of the deeds and rights of way belonging to all your holdings in these lands as soon as' possible, so we will have plenty of time to examine same before we sign the final detailed agreement which you are making.” It appeared that the property dealt with consisted of a great number of separate tracts some of which defendant owned and on some of which he held options. The acreage of certain of the tracts was uncertain, and the title to others was in dispute. Held, that the references to the land in question were inadequate to identify the property intended