Swain v. Burnette
Citations
- 89 Cal. 564
- 26 P. 1093
- 1891 Cal. LEXIS 855
Syllabus
<p>Vendor and Purchaser — Parol Contract for Exchange of Lands — Statute of Frauds — Part Performance — Specific Performance. — If one party to an oral agreement for the exchange of lands conveys his own land to the other party, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, it is a sufficient part performance by him to take the agreement out of the statute of frauds and entitlehim to its specific performance by the other party.</p> <p>Id. — Conditional Delivery of Deed — Unauthorized Agency — Nonacceptance. — If the plaintiff delivered his conveyance on condition that the defendant convey to the plaintiff, and such delivery was made to the defendant’s agent, who was not authorized to accept it, and the defendant thereupon refused to accept it, or to make the exchange orally agreed upon, there is no part performance sufficient to take the agreement out of the statute of frauds.</p> <p>Id. — Authority of Agent to Procure Exchange — Contract of Principal— Delivery of Deed. —A written agreement authorizing a real estate agent to effect a satisfactory sale or exchange of the land of the principal does not authorize the agent to enter into a binding contract for the exchange, or to accept a deed for the principal, if the principal afterwards makes a contract for the exchange of the land; and a delivery of a deed of land to the agent, by a party claiming to have entered into a contract of exchange with the principal, is not a delivery to the principal.</p> <p>Id. — Undelivered Deed — Memorandum of Agreement.—A deed of land signed by the grantor, in pursuance of an oral agreement for the exchange of lands, but which is not delivered and is not shown to have contained a memorandum of the oral agreement for the exchange of lands, cannot be regarded as a sufficient memorandum of such oral agreement to take it out of the statute of frauds.</p> <p>Id. — Letters — Rejection of Proposition—Insufficient Memorandum. —Letters written by the owner of real estate in regard to a negoti
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[A] witness is unavailable under [OCGA § 24-8-804 (a) (5) where the State has] show[n] that reasonable, good-faith efforts to locate the witness were made.”
- witness's statements made before plea offer were admissible to rebut suggestion that witness fabricated his testimony in order to receive benefit of a plea offer
- witness’s statements made before plea offer were admissible to rebut suggestion that witness fabricated his testimony in order to receive benefit of a plea offer
- prior consistent statement admissible where defense implicitly argued that witness had motive to lie that arose after statement was given
- “When we consider the meaning of Rule 804, we may consider the decisions of federal appellate courts, particularly the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit, construing and applying our rule’s federal counterpart.”
- “[T]he trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting [a witness’s] prior trial testimony [under Rule 804 (b) (1)] after concluding that the State made a reasonable effort to locate him” — i.e., after concluding that a witness was “unavailable” under Rule 804 (a) (5)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Haven
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.