Casey v. Diehl
84 Kan. 443
Kan.1911Check TreatmentNo cause of action for the loss of his bargain accrued to the plaintiff, because the contract was not binding under the statute of frauds. (Leis v. Potter, 68 Kan. 117, 121.)
The other item of damage claimed is not recoverable -on the principle of estoppel, because the claim arises upon voluntary conduct of the plaintiff, not induced by the defendant, and entirely outside the purview of the contract.
The judgment is affirmed.