127 A. 361 | R.I. | 1925
Heard on respondent's appeal from final decree of the Superior Court ordering respondent to convey certain real estate.
Complainant's bill is based upon the following written contract signed by respondent: "I, the undersigned, Paolo Caianillo, of Pontiac, in the County of Kent and State of Rhode Island, in the Town of Warwick, have received one hundred dollars ($100), as part payment for the buildings which I have sold to him, Mr. Giuseppe Colci, of West Warwick. The entire sum will be six thousand and six hundred dollars ($6600)."
It is conceded that the contract is one for the sale of land and the sole question is whether it contains a sufficient description of the subject matter.
The justice presiding, relying upon Sholovitz v.Noorigian,
The descriptive language of the above memorandum is "the buildings I have sold." No mention is made of their location nor, as in the case relied upon by complainant, were both parties residents of the same town. The words used *307
are indefinite. They do not purport to describe any particular piece of land. The oral evidence did not identify an incomplete description. It created a description where none before existed. This can not be done under the statute. Ray v. Card,
We find no case in which it has been held that a memorandum is sufficient where there is an utter absence of description of the property sold. The case of Robeson v. Hornbaker,
The appeal is sustained. The decree appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Superior Court with direction to enter a decree dismissing the bill of complaint.