Case ID: ohio-np_5/html/0419-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DEMPSEY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(Superior Court of Cincinnati.)
    Special Term.
    MARY JACOB v. CATHERINE FISCHER et al.
    Where a defense is based upon a promise required by the statute of frauds to be in writing, the answer must show that such promise was in writing.
    W. S. Little, for the motion.
    Burch & Johnson, contra.
    Heard on motion by plaintiff to require answer of defendants to be made more definite and certain by setting out whether promise set forth in said answer was oral or written.
   DEMPSEY, J.

Motion granted. The petition is one for a partition of real estate; the answer seeks to postpone partition by averment of a promise between plaintiff and defendants to defer partition or sale of premises until after a certain date. Where defendant seeks to bar plaintiff’s right of action by reason of a promise or agreement, which by the statute of frauds is required to be in writing, defendant’s answer must show such promise or agreement to be m writing. Reinheimer v. Carter, 31 Ohio St., 579-587; Headington v. Neff, 7 Ohio St., 229.