Source: https://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Handbook-Law-Of-Contracts/Showing-As-To-Subject-Matter.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:37:24+00:00

Document:
30 Hayes v. Jackson, 159 Mass. 451, 34 N. E. 683 coverruling Grace v. Deni-son, 114 Mass. 16]; White v. Dahlquist Mfg. Co., 179 Mass. 427, 60 N. E. 791; Johnson v. Ronald, 4 Munf. (Va.) 77. Contra, Kelly v. Thuey, 143 Mo. 422, 45 S. W. 300, in which it is said, per Sherwood, J.: "At one time in this court the heresy was announced that parol testimony was admissible for the purpose indicated. O'Neil v. Crain, 67 Mo. 251. The last erroneous adjudication on this subject is found in Ellis v. Bray, 79 Mo. 227; but the contrary and correct ruling was declared in Ringer v. Holtzclaw, 112 Mo. 519, 20 S. W. 800, and followed in Boyd v. Paul, 125 Mo. 9, 28 S. W. 171." And see cases cited supra, note 27. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 112; Cent. Dig. § 23S.
31 Sault v. Stormont, 51 Mich. 636, 17 N. W. 214; Nelson .v. Shelby Mfg.
& Imp. Co., 96 Ala. 515, 11 South. 695, 38 Am. St. Rep. 116 (memorandum relied on by vendor to establish validity of contract against vendee). See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 112; Cent. Dig. % 288.
7 Mo. 389; Mason v. Small, 130 Mo. App. 249, 109 S. W. 822. "I have sold this place" is not sufficient. Cunha v. Gallery, 29 R. I. 230, 69 Atl. 1001, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 616, 132 Am. St. Rep. 811. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 109, 110; Cent. Dig. §§ 222-236.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 112
 § 23
 v. 
 § 112
 v. 
 v.