Clark v. Chamberlin

Mar 15, 1873
Reporters:
Before:
Morton
Morton, J.

The insuperable difficulty in the plaintiff’s case is, that the memorandum ‍‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍in writing does not contain a description of the premises sold sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. It describes the land ‍‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍sold as lots Ho. 1 and 2, but no plan is referred to, and none existed, fixing the location or limits of ‍‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍the lots. It does not in itself, or by reference to other writings, contain the means of identifying the premises. Whelan v. Sullivan, 102 Mass. 204.

It ‍‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍shows that the defendant agreed to purchase a part of a large tract of land owned by the plaintiff, but furnishes no ‍‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍means of determining what or how large a part.

Judgment for the defendant.