Sweetland v. Shattuck
DELIA SWEETLAND v. D. D. SHATTUCK
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ross (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Ross
Ross, J.
Assuming that the agreement upon which the plaintiff relied for a recovery was required to be evidenced by writing, the plaintiff was permitted in the court below to give proof of the agreement without objection that it was not in writing. Such objection cannot be made here for the first time. (Reed on the Statute of Frauds, vol. 2d, §§ 540, 541, and authorities there cited.)
The evidence upon which the verdict was based was substantially conflicting, and there were no exceptions taken in the court below to the instructions of the court.
Judgment and order affirmed.
McKinstry, J., and McKee, J., concurred.
Cited by
- Durbin v. Hillman Civ. No. 2108. · 1920-12-13
- Schultz v. Noble No. 11039 · 1888-09-13