BIGELOW
v.
ARMES

U.S. | 1882-11-06
108 U.S. 10 Supreme Court of the United States (1882) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 27 L. Ed. 631 · 1 S. Ct. 83 · SCDB 1882-024 · 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1273
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Me. Chief Justice Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.'

.After stating the facts-as above, he continued:

Upon these facts,' in our opinion, it was the duty of the couft below to enter the decree it did requiring a completion of the performance of the contract by Bigelow. Whether, in view of the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, the memorandum signed by both parties was of itself sufficient to support the bill, is a question Ave' do not think it important to discuss, because, if the memorandum is not enough, the terms of the contract have been otherwise clearly established by the evidence, and there has been full performance by Armes and substantial part performance by Bigelow.

The decree is affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Riggles v. Erney, 38 L. Ed. 976 (U.S. 1894)
    …having stipulated that the expenditure should be made, this should be regarded as a consideration or condition of the gift, and a specific performance Avas decreed. To same effect is Hardesty v. Richardson, 44 Maryland, 617. So in Bigelow v. Armes, 108 U. S. 10. Armes proposed inAvriting to Bigelow to exchange his real estate for BigeloAv’s Avith a cash bonus. The latter accepted in Avriting. Armes complied in full; BigeloAV in part only. It was held to be unnecessary to determine Avhether the Avritten mem…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw