Meek v. Briggs
Citations
- 80 Fla. 487
- 86 So. 271
Syllabus
<p>1. Telegrams or letters to the writer’s agent may constitute adequate memorandum of the contract under the statute of frauds, and several telegrams, letters or other -writings signed by the party to be charged may be considered together in supplying the essential elements of such memorandum as will satisfy the statute.</p> <p>2. When memorandum under the statute of frauds consists of more than one writing, some of which are signed by the party to be charged and others not signed by him, in order that the unsigned writing or writings may be used to supply the essential elements of the contract there must be some reference to them in the signed writings of such party.</p> <p>3. Memorandum, in order to make another writing a part thereof so as to constitute a part of the contract, must refer to such other writing, and parol proof of the connection of the papers is not admissible to establish a contract required by the statute of frauds to be in writing.</p> <p>4. While memorandum of the contract may consist of two or more writings connected by clear reference in one to the other and parol testimony is inadmissible to connect them, it may in such case be resorted to to identify the writing referred to.</p>
Judges: Browne, Ellis, Taylor, West, Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Ashland Oil, Inc. v. PickardDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1972-11-28· cited 81×
- Donald White v. Sunoco IncThird Circuit· 2017-09-05· cited 59×
- Socarras v. Claughton Hotels, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1979-08-14· cited 35×
- Zimmerman v. DiedrichSupreme Court of Florida· 1957-09-20· cited 21×
- Minsky's Follies of Florida, Inc. v. SennesFifth Circuit· 1953-09-17· cited 20×
- First Guaranty Corp. v. Palmer Bank & TrustDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1981-09-02· cited 19×
- Mehler v. HustonSupreme Court of Florida· 1952-03-25· cited 18×
- Heffernan v. KeithDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1961-03-13· cited 16×
- Cohodas v. RussellDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1974-01-23· cited 14×
- Phillips v. ZimringDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1973-09-14· cited 10×
- Unatin v. HudonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1980-05-21· cited 6×
- S & S Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. HirschfieldDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1969-09-30· cited 2×
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Beckwith v. TalbotSupreme Court· 1877-12-10· cited 103×
- Hale v. HaleSupreme Court of Virginia· 1894-06-14· cited 49×
- Freeland v. RitzMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1891-07-28· cited 45×
- Tice v. FreemanSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1883-05-04· cited 19×
- Elbert v. Los Angeles Gas Co.California Supreme Court· 1893-01-21· cited 18×
- Olson v. SharplessSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1893-04-27· cited 11×
- Barnett v. McCreaNew York Supreme Court· 1894-02-13· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.