The Grangeville globe. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho) 1907-1922, 1912-06-20
pCHEARING in
GRAIN CASES
/, II Ilo Case, Houser VS..
uobart to be Tried in
Lower Court.

me the noted lilo grain con
- ease of Houser VS.. Hobart,
',h;eb it declared that con-
;, for the sale of grain was
binding unless a memorandum
,ba transaction be signed by
a parties, the decision being
IA IN the statute of frauds
4 this state.
gouser, representing the grain
,nDany. then presented a petit
T. for rehearing, calling the at
''st;on of the court to the points
sstaining the claim that only
Il Signature of 1.-THE party 10
!. charged" or defendant in the
N was required to make con
,,,et binding, and on this a re
barring was granted.
There are number of similar
.,ses drawn in the Grangeville
Immunity which makes the mat
4 Of deep interest here. Fol
having are some of the points in
liz case:
4 Adyices were received yester-
dU that the supreme court has
ranted a rehearing in the case
4 NJ H. Houser against Hobart
BROTHERS,. This was an action
evolving a barley contract, ap-
psled from Lewis county as a
lst case, and was submitted at
he last term of the supreme
court at Lewiston.
1.-The defendants had contract
ID in August to sell their barley
% HOuser on October deliveries.
Last year the price of barley rose
santinuously from August to Nov
snber, and at the time of deliv-
by the price had advanced con-
lderably above the August prices.
The defendants refused to per-
form their contract and were
ned for damages. In defense
They pleaded the statute of frauds
which requires certain contracts
b be evidenced by a writing.
1.-The pleadings in the case state
that when the sale was made
apencil memorandum of the con
tract was drawn reciting the
agreement of defendants to sell
and deliver the grain and the
sgeement of Houser to purchase
and pay for it; that the memoran-
DUN was made in duplicate and
pue copy was kept by each of
ne parties; and that the agree
nfnt was signed by Hobart Broth
sn Is set out in the pleadings,
and defendants made great
number of objections to the SUI.
hency Of this writing. One of
ae objections made by defendant
vas that the memorandum was
l't signed by Houser, though he
M confirmed it by his letters.
The statute of frauds pro-
'aes that agreements to sell per-
"aal property of more than 5000
alne shall not be enforceable I'M
. the contract can be proved
some written admission or
aenorandum, signed by the par
TO be charged.
Idaho took the. statute from
Aai0rnia, which in turn took
fom New York, which in the
''lonlal days took it from Eng
~, as,' where it was adopted in
w the original hearing in
y supreme court, Houser coun-
y old not brief nor argue in de-
VI the question of whether the
ssa had to be signed by
WI parties in order to make the
'u'faet proveable, the briefs be-
manly directed to the dis
slon Of other points in the
!, ine court was accordingly left
'alOut a complete presentation
:, me authorities on this point,
,.s - oaslng their decision on the
,s'S called to their attention,
NJ; aeclded that a contract of
L. a. :. ANA could not be proved UNI
i. 'ne written memorandum was
/, l'u by both the buyer and sell
|tb.a :. petition for rehearing was
4, ~ !, illed in which the attention