Sprague v. Haines
Citations
- 68 Tex. 215
- 4 S.W. 371
- 1887 Tex. LEXIS 668
Syllabus
<p>1. Statute of Frauds—Case Overruled. — The case of Anderson v. Powers, 59 Texas, 313, in so far as it sustained a parol agreement as not being within the operation of the statute of frauds, under the facts presented in that case, overruled.</p> <p>2. Statute of Frauds.—The words “ any contract for the sale of real estate” (Revised Statutes, article 2464), include every agreement by which one promises to alienate an existing interest in land upon consideration either good or valuable; hence a contract to convey land, in consideration of labor or services to be rendered, is within the statute, and every parol contract, in whatever shape it may be put, by which either party is to part with real estate, is unavailing as the ground of a claim.</p> <p>3. Statute of Frauds.—A parol contract made between an attorney and his client, whereby the former was to receive, in consideration of professional services to be rendered in removing cloud from title to land then owned by his client, a part of the land, was within the statute of frauds, and specific performance thereof can not be enforced.</p> <p>4. Jurisdiction—Service of Citation.—The service of citation upon a minor defendant is essential in order to confer jurisdiction upon the court and to authorize the appointment of a guardian ad litem.</p>
Judges: Gaines
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
20 cases in this archive cite this case.
- In re D. W. M.Texas Supreme Court· 1978-03-01· cited 66×
- W. L. C., Matter OfTexas Supreme Court· 1978-03-01· cited 46×
- Wright v. JonesTexas Commission of Appeals· 1932-07-19· cited 43×
- Keating Implement & Machine Co. v. Marshall Electric Light & Power Co.Texas Supreme Court· 1889-10-25· cited 39×
- Masterson v. LittleCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1890-01-28· cited 26×
- H.R.A., Matter OfCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1990-05-17· cited 24×
- De Proy v. ProgakisTexas Commission of Appeals· 1925-02-25· cited 21×
- Schultz v. ScottCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1919-03-26· cited 16×
- In re M. W.Court of Appeals of Texas· 1975-03-19· cited 13×
- Mecum v. MetzWyoming Supreme Court· 1924-02-05· cited 12×
- Vandewater v. American General Fire & Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Texas· 1995-02-08· cited 11×
- Edward Scharf Associates, Inc. v. SkibaCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1976-06-24· cited 10×
- Wilt v. KelloggCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1936-11-18· cited 3×
- In Re MWCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1975-03-19· cited 2×
- In Matter of DWMTexas Supreme Court· 1978-03-01· cited 1×
- Matter of HRATex. App. Ct., 9th Dist. (Beaumont)· 1990-05-17
- Matter of WLCTexas Supreme Court· 1978-03-01
- in the Interest Of: V.M.I.Tex. App. Ct., 1st Dist. (Houston)· 2003-03-13
- in the Interest of M.M.S., a ChildTex. App. Ct., 14th Dist. (Houston)· 2016-09-22
- In the Interest of P.W., a Child v. the State of TexasTex. App. Ct., 2nd Dist. (Fort Worth)· 2026-02-26
Cites
9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Miller v. RobertsTexas Supreme Court· 1856-07-01· cited 25×
- Dowling v. McKenneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1878-06-28· cited 21×
- Smith v. CrosbyTexas Supreme Court· 1877-07-01· cited 19×
- Anderson v. PowersTexas Supreme Court· 1883-04-10· cited 18×
- Helm v. Logan's heirsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1815-05-31· cited 16×
- Watkins v. GilkersonTexas Supreme Court· 1853-07-01· cited 14×
- Goshen & Sharon Turnpike Co. v. SearsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1828-06-15· cited 14×
- Evans' Adm'r v. HardemanTexas Supreme Court· 1855-07-01· cited 12×
- Baxter v. KitchIndiana Supreme Court· 1871-11-15· cited 5×
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.