107 Mo. 350 | Mo. | 1891
This cause has been transferred' to this court from the St. Louis court of appeals under the constitutional provision.
The only point presented, the turning point in the • case, for consideration is whether such a contract as the • pleadings and evidence present is capable of being sold, transferred or assigned by parol; that is, whether one of' five parties, lessees of a large tract of land for the term of ten years, can make a valid verbal contract with an outsider, whereby the interest of such party in the lease-can be transferred to such outsider for four years, the residue of the term, the latter agreeing to stand in the-stead of one the party to the lease, and to pay the same-amount he would have had to do to his lessor, to-wit, $100 per year.
Section 2 of the chapter referred to, it being section 2510, Revised Statutes, 1879, provides: “No leases, estates, interests, either of freehold or term of years, or -any uncertain interest of, in, to or out of any messuages, lands, tenements or hereditaments shall at any time hereafter be assigned, granted or surrendered, unless it be by deed or note, in writing, signed by the party so assigning, granting or surrendering the same, or their agents lawfully authorized by writing, or by operation of law.”
Section 5 of the same chapter, it being section 2513, declares: “No action shall be brought to charge * * * any person upon * * * any contract for the ■sale of lands * * * or any lease thereof for a longer time than one year, or upon any agreement that is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof, unless the agreement upon which the action ¡shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be ■charged therewith, or some other person by him thereto ¿awfully authorized.”
It seems at first blush that the contract in suit ■plainly infracts both of the sections above quoted, in that it attempts by parol to assign a lease fora term of years
Whatever may be the rule in equity as to the doctrine of part performance, that rule has no place in an action at law, as in the present instance. 3 Pars. on Cont. [7 Ed.] 60; Sharp v. Rhiel, 55 Mo. 97. It is unnecessary to review the authorities in this state ; that has been well done by Rombatjeb, P. J., in 36 Mo. App. 306. If there are any authorities in conflict with the views here announced, we overrule them. We hold, as-did the court of appeals, that the demurrer to the evidence of plaintiff should have been granted. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and remand this cause to that court for further proceedings.