Case ID: ny-st-rep_30/html/0399-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frank B. Stearns, App’lt, v. The St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co., Resp’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
    
    
      Filed February 14, 1890.)
    
    Statute of frauds—Foreign contract for sale of real estate.
    Plaintiff and defendant entered into a verbal contract by which the latter agreed to carry out a prior contract for the sale of lands in Missouri made by its predecessor in tille, on payment being made in cash. It being shown that the statute of frauds of Missouri was similar to that in this state, Held, that the agreement was within such statute and was void.
    Appeal from a, judgment recovered by defendant upon a verdict ordered by the court in favor of the defendant for the counterclaim in the answer.
    This case has been before the general term on an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment dismissing his complaint, which "judgment was reversed and a new trial ordered; and on a motion on behalf of defendant for reargument, which motion was denied. Opinions were written in both instances by Mr. Justice Daniels, which will be found in 2 FT. Y. State Eep., 391, and 4 id., 715.
    It was also here on appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff when the judgment was reversed on the ground that the contract was within the Missouri statute of frauds, which was shown to be similar to that in this state. 21 FT. Y. State Eep., 745.
    These opinions substantially cover the questions presented on the present appeal. The judge, at the trial, in accordance with the decision of the general term on the last appeal, dismissed the complaint, and directed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant against the plaintiff for the sum due on the counterclaim, to wit, $157,992.15. Such verdict was so rendered and judgment was entered accordingly, and plaintiff has appealed.
    
      James Dunne, for pl’ff; John M Burrill, for deft.
   Per Curiam.

The judgment appealed from must be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion in this case delivered by this court upon the decision of the previous appeal. 21 N. Y. State Rep., 745.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Van Brunt, P. J., Bartlett and Barrett, JJ., concur.