STATUTE OF FRAUDS - ESTOPPEL AT LAW AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR PART PERFORMANCE IN EQUITY

Authors

John M. Ulman, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

In 1930, plaintiff, as administratrix, mortgaged real estate to defendant. In 1933, plaintiff acquiesced in a foreclosure by defendant in pursuance of an oral agreement between the parties whereby it was understood that defendant would convey the land to plaintiff individually to hold for herself and others, plaintiff to give to defendant another mortgage for the same amount and to pay the costs. Defendant obtained title by foreclosure in March, 1934. Extensive repairs and improvements were made by plaintiff between September, 1934 and the spring of 1935. In October, 1934, defendant gave notice to plaintiff that it would not be bound by the contract and that part of the land had been sold. Plaintiff retained possession until November, 1935. This action was brought by plaintiff to recover damages for breach of the oral contract. Held, that the doctrine of estoppel at law is co-extensive with that of part performance in equity and that, by reason of plaintiff's possession and improvements on the land which was the subject of the oral contract, defendant is estopped to assert the statute of frauds. Wolfe v. Wallingford, (Conn. 1938) 1A. (2d) 146.

Recommended Citation

John M. Ulman, STATUTE OF FRAUDS - ESTOPPEL AT LAW AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR PART PERFORMANCE IN EQUITY, 37 Mich. L. Rev. 673 (1939).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol37/iss4/25