The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-05-13

F. W. Hankey for defendant
DISSENTING OPINION OF eALBRA1rH, J. Esasssss.'
not able assent the doctrine announced in the
majority opinion particularly that concerning principal
last proposition discussed the suciency memoranda
reced take the of the operation of the
of frauds This opinion fobly illustrates the simplicity and
effectiveness of system of Inference reference compar
SON revving and terminating indefinite
and also shows operation of the system results
IN setting aside and annulng statute by judicial decision
The statute provides that mo shall be brought and
maintained upon any contract for the sale of
lands Entertainments or Of any interest in or con-
corning Them "Uness the promise, contract or
agreement upon which such actions shall be brought or some
thereof be in writing and be signed
by the party to be charged Herewith" Civil Laws 1897
Sec 1314.)
1t not contended that the sued writing
but it is held that the memoranda recited sufficient
it out of the operation the In other that while
the contract of such character that incapable of enforce
of this statute the receipt
tain all the essential elements of contract and are sufficient
to authorize the order specific
tract in spite of the statute.
The of this decision be determined by the
law announced by the authorities. sss
the material terms of the Statute Frauds
p Il.
The memorandum relied "must contain such words will
enable court without danger mistake declare the
meaning of the parties It obvae the necessity of going
parol testimony and relying in treacherous memory to
what the contract itself was ScarH D. ST. Johns M. b.
Church, Mo- App. 49,
Another is of specific performance sought the
of the appear with sufficient certainty enable
the chancellor make definite decree Oakundn Rogers
100 Mass. 214 *@
The United States Supreme Court says UNLESS the essential
of the sale be asceraned from the writing ITSELF
by reference it to something else, the writing not
pance with the staute and if the be thus defective
be supplied by paro proof for that would at once
introduce all the mchiefs which the intended to
prevent" Williams .. Morris, 95 U. S. 456.
take that the members Of the practically agree
governing this and that the principal point OF
difference the proper application of the law to the facts
what this alleged oral between plaintiff and
relative the sale of the land? The plaintiffs state
Of the and of the his direct
examination was as follows up Ho year ago last
November look after coffee lands and day walking
with Mr. Turner he spoke about different subjects At last
he spoke about coffee lands told Mr. Turner had about
100 of land up there and looking for And Mr.
Turner that of land there under Right of
Purchase Lease and that he old be Milling to sell has no
prouided he could get sufficient money mproce has so
acres he aoould be ong to sell his application for 40 acres
provided he could get sufficient money improUe has so
first which he duty bound in different conditions the
government and asked him sohat he oud take his 1Q
and he said he didn't know. said "soU you take
$1,000 for 1T told him the time that had pay $1,000
for $50 And he said Eyes apU take 00 pyoded
you pay for the land That made $1420 all told. We
agreed upon that and few days after his office and
gave Mr. Turner $2943O Turner gave me this receipt
The receipt reads as follows:
"S2943O Nov sth 1897
Received from Chas j. Fshe Two Hundred and Ninety
four 30100 Dollars % purchase price Lots 355, $50 and
357, Oaa, per agreement.
(Sig) Gro. A. TuRNER.'
The plaintiff further efes that olaa in Hio while the
records show it to be in Puma