Contracts/Implication-in-fact

From wikilawschool.org. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
< Contracts

Contracts Treatise
Table of Contents
Contracts Outline
Introduction and Definitions
Introduction
Definitions
Elements
Contract law in the United States
Contract formation
Parties
Offer
Acceptance
Intention to Bind
Formal requisites
Mailbox rule
Mirror image rule
Invitation to deal
Firm offer
Consideration
Consent
Implication-in-fact
Collateral contract
Modification
Merger
Uniform Commercial Code
Uniform Commercial Code
Course of dealing
Course of performance
UCC-1 financing statement
Uniform Commercial Code adoption
Defenses against formation
Lack of capacity
Duress
Undue influence
Illusory promise
Statute of frauds
Uncertainty
Non est factum
Contract interpretation
Governing law
Construction and Operation
Parol evidence rule
Contract of adhesion
Integration clause
Contra proferentem
Excuses for non-performance
Mistake
Misrepresentation
Frustration of purpose
Impossibility
Impracticability
Illegality
Unclean hands
Unconscionability
Accord and satisfaction
Rights of third parties
Privity of contract
Assignment
Delegation
Novation
Third-party beneficiary
Performance or Breach
Necessity of performance
Sufficiency of performance
Anticipatory repudiation
Cover
Exclusion clause
Efficient breach
Deviation
Fundamental breach
Termination
Termination
Rescission
Termination and rescission
Abrogation and rescission
Subsequent contract
Termination
Forfeiture
Remedies
Restitution
Specific performance
Liquidated damages
Punitive damages
Quasi-contractual obligations
Estoppel
Quantum meruit
Actions
Actions in General
Parties to Action
Pleading
Evidence
Questions of Law and Fact
Instructions
Trial and Judgment

In General[edit | edit source]

An implied-in-fact contract, or an implied contract in the proper sense, arises where the intention of the parties is not expressed, but an agreement in fact, creating an obligation, is implied or presumed from their acts,[1] or, as it has been otherwise stated, where there are circumstances which, according to the ordinary course of dealing and the, common understanding of men, show a mutual intent to contract.[2] It follows that the only distinction between this species of contract and express contracts rests in the mode of proof;[3] the nature of the understanding is the same, and both express contracts and contracts implied in fact are founded on the mutual agreement of the parties.[4] The one class is proved by direct, the other by indirect, evidence;[5] in other words, the one must be proved by an actual agreement, while in the case of the other it will be implied that the party did make such an agreement as, under the circumstances disclosed, he ought in fairness to have made.[6] The implication, of course, must be a reasonable deduction from all the circumstances and relations of the parties,[7] although it need not be evidenced by any precise words,[8] and may result from random statements and uncertain language.[9] A contract will not be implied where it would result in the perpetration of a wrong,[10] or it would be inequitable to do so,[11] or where the parties cannot legally make an express contract;[12] so a promise to do an act contrary to duty or to law is never implied.[13]

Adoption of existing contract[edit | edit source]

Where a person who is a stranger to a contract deliberately enters into relations with one of the parties which are consistent only with an adoption of such contract, and so acts as to lead such party to believe that he has made the contract his own, he will not be permitted afterward to repudiate it.[14]

Questions of what facts will establish an implied contract[edit | edit source]

Being identical with the questions of what facts are sufficient to show an offer and acceptance, are treated in connection with the discussion of offer,[15] acceptance,[16] and intent to affect legal relations[17] generally.

Other definitions[edit | edit source]

  1. A contract is implied when it is evidenced by conduct manifesting an intention of an agreement."[18]
  2. "A contract . . . is implied when the agreement is matter of inference and deduction."[19]
  3. "An implied contract is co-ordinate and commensurate with duty, and whenever it is certain that one ought to do a particular thing . . . the law presumes the former to have promised that thing."[20]
  4. "An implied agreement is one where the conduct of the parties with reference to the subject matter is such as to induce the belief that they intended to do that which their acts indicate they have done."[21]
  5. "An implied promise always exists where equity and justice require a party to do or refrain from doing the thing in question; where the covenant on one side involves some corresponding obligations on the other; where by the relations of the parties and the subject matter of the contract a duty is owing by one not expressly bound by the contract to the other party in reference to the subject of . . . [the contract]; and where it may be rightfully assumed that it would have been made if attention had been drawn to it."[22]
  6. "An Implied contract, in fact, arises where there is not an express contract, but there is circumstantial evidence showing that the parties did intend to make a contract."[23]
  7. An implied contract is one the existence and terms of which "is inferred from the conduct, situation, or mutual relations of the parties, and enforced by the law on the ground or justice."[24]
  8. "The term implied contract is generally used to denote a promise which the law, from the existence of certain facts, presumes that a party has made."[25]

Statutory definitions[edit | edit source]

"One, the existence and terms of which are manifested by conduct." [26]

Criticisms of the term[edit | edit source]

  1. "Contracts which are proved by the declarations and conduct of the parties and other circumstances, all of which are explainable only upon the theory of a mutual agreement, are often called, although not with en· tire accuracy, Implied contracts, and this definition will explain the ambiguity of some authorities and the apparent contrariety of others, all of the authorities, however, seem to agree that in suits for compensation for services, where a family relation is conceded or shown to exist, an actual contract must be clearly proved. Such contract may be in writing or it may rest entirely in parol, but it must nevertheless be a contract, and in our opinion it is a misnomer to denominate it an implied contract. It does not arise from nor is it aided by implication, but must be strictly proved."[27]
  2. "It is sometimes said that 'the law implies an agreement' as to the matters omitted to be explicitly stated in the verbal bargain. Strictly speaking, this is inaccurate. The agreement, though not fully expressed in words, is, nevertheless, a genuine agreement of the parties; it is 'implied' only in this, that it is to be inferred from the acts or conduct of the parties instead of from their spoken words; 'the engagement is signified by conduct instead of words.' But acts intended to lead to a certain inference may 'express a promise as well as words would have done.'"[28]

Effect of Express Contract[edit | edit source]

There can be no implied contract where there is an express contract between the parties in reference to the same subject matter.[29] The reason of the rule is that, since parties are bound by their agreement, there is no ground for implying a promise where there is an express contract,[30] and it can make no difference whether the contract is made by the parties themselves or by others for them.[31] This rule only applies, however, where the express and the asserted implied contract relate to the same subject matter, and where the provisions of the express contract would supersede those of the other.[32] It does not apply where the implied agreement is based on the subsequent conduct of the parties not covered by the express contract.[33] Further, where the express contract is rescinded, resort may be had to an implied contraet.[34] So if the contract has been completely executed, plaintiff may recover as on an implied contract, under an indebitatus assumpsit, the price of his services, but the contract must regulate the amount of recovery.[35] Further, a contract may be implied when the express agreement is unenforceable for certain reasons.[36]

See also[edit | edit source]


Cases[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. Hawaii.-- Wall v. Focke, 21 Hawaii 399, 403, AnnCas 1916C 677 [quot Cyc].
    IIl.-- Peo. v. Dummer, 274 Ill. 837,113 NE 934.
    Ind.-- Yawger v. Joseph, 184 Ind. 228, 108 NE 774.
    Iowa.-- Ottumwa Mill, etc., Co. v. Manchester, 139 Iowa 334, 115 NW 911, 81
    La.-- Baker v. Stoutmeyer, 2 MeG.
    N.H.-- Bixby v. Moore, 61 N. H. 402.
    N.J.-- Gannon v. Brady Brass Co., 82 N. J. L. 411. 81 A 727, AnnCas 1913C 1308.
    N.Y.-- Peo. v. Speir, 77 N. Y. 144.
    Oh.-- Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. Gaffney, 85 Oh. St. 104, 61 NE 162.
    Pa.-- Hertzog v. Hertzog, 29 Pa. 466.
    Phillipine.-- Peres v. Pomar, 2 Phillipine 882.
    S.C.-- Dowling v. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 81. SE 313.
    Tenn.-- Thompson v. Woodruff, 7 Coldw. 407, 410.
    Tex.-- Cuneo v. De Cuneo, 24 Tex. Civ. A. 436, 69 SW 284.
    "A contract may be implied where an agreement in fact is presumed from the acts of the parties, and this is the proper meaning of an implied contract." Peo. v. Dummer, 274 Ill. 637, 640, 113 NE 934.
    "An implied agreement is one where the conduct of the parties with reference to the subject matter is such as to induce the belief that they intended to do that which their acts indicate they have done." Cuneo v. De Cuneo, 24 Tex. Civ. A. 436, 438, 69 SW 284.
  2. U.S.-- Wisconsln Steel Co. v. Maryland Steel Co., 203 Fed. 408, 121 CCA 607; Knapp v. U.S., 4S Ct. Ct. 601.
    Iowa.-- Fouke v. Jackson County, 84 Iowa 616, 51 NW 71.
    N.H.-- Sceva v. True, 53 N.H. 627.
    N.J.-- Passino v. Brady Brass Co., 88 N.J.L. 419, 421, 84 A 616 [cit Cyc].
    N.Y.-- Keokuk Commercial Bank v. Pfeiffer, 22 Hun 327 [aff 108 N.Y. 242, 16 NE 811].
    Pa.-- Hertzog v. Hertzog, 29 Pa. 465.
    Tex.-- Pierce v. Aiken, (Civ. A.) 146 SW 950, 962 [quot Cyc.).
    In implied contracts

    the parties have capacity to contract; facts, circumstances, few or many, clear or complicated, exist, which lead the minds of the jurors to the conclusion that the minds of the parties met. Minds may meet by words, acts, or both. The words even may negative such meeting, but "acts which speak louder than words" may conclude him who denies a tacit contract.

    Sceva v. True, 63 N. H. 627, 629.

    "Implied contracts in fact do not arise from the denials and contentions of parties." Knapp v. U.S., 46 Ct. Cl. 601, 643.

  3. Hawaii.-- Wall v. Focke, 22 Hawaii 221.
    Ill.-- Peo. v. Dummer, 274 Ill. 637, 113 NE 934; Highway Comrs. v. Bloomington, 253 Ill. 184, 97 NE 280, AnnCas1913A 471.
    · Me.-- Saunders v. Saunders, 90 Me. 284, 38 A 172.
    Mich.-- Woods v. Ayres, 39 Mich. 346, 33 AmR 396.
    N.Y.-- McCarthy v. New York, 96 N.Y. 1, 48 AmR 601; Peo. v. Speir, 77 N.Y. 144.
    Oh.-- Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. Gaffney, 66 Oh. St. 104, 61 NE 162.
    Tex.-- Fordtran v. Stowers, 62 Tex. Civ. A. 226, 113 SW 631.

    Neither an express contract nor one by implication can come into existence unless the parties sustain contract relations, and the difference between the two forms consists in the mode of substantiation and not in the nature of the thing itself. . . . To constitute either one or the other the parties must occupy towards each other a contract status and there must be that connection, mutuality of will and interaction of parties, generally expressed though not very clearly by the term "privity." Without this a contract by implication is quite impossible.

    Woods v. Ayres, 39 Mich. 345, 360, 33 AmR 396.

    As ordinarily understood, the only difference between an express contract and an impiled contract is that in the former the parties arrive at their agreement by words, either oral or written, sealed or unsealed, while in the latter their agreement is arrived at by a consideration of their acts and conduct.

    Highway Comrs. v. Bloomington, 263 Ill. 164, 17%. 97 NE 280. AnnCas1913A 471.
  4. Ala.-- Montgomery v. Montgomery Water Works Co., 77 Ala. 248; Keel v. Larkin, 72 Ala. 49S.
    Cal.-- Smlth v. Moynihan, 44 Cal. 63.
    Ill.-- Saul v. Busenbark, 83 Ill. A. 256 (rev on other grounds 184 Ill. 343. 66 NE 417).
    Minn.-- Lombard v. Rahilly, 127 Minn. 449, 149 NW 960.
    N.Y.-- Peo. v. Speir, 77 N.Y. 144; Chilcott v. Trimble, 13 Barb. 502.
    Pa.-- Hertzog v. Hertzog, 29 Pa. 465; Garst v. Wissler, 21 Pa. Super. 632.
    Tex.-- Prichard v. Foster, (Civ. A.) 170 SW 1077; Fordtran v. Stowers, 52 Tex. Civ. A. 226, 113 SW 631.
    Vt.-- Underhlll v. Rutland R. Co., 98 A 1017; Morse v. Kenney, 87 Vt. 445, 89 A 866; Mathie v. Hancock, 78 Vt. 414, 63 A 143.
    Meeting of minds-- If the contract to be proved is an actual one, a meeting of minds is as essential to an implied contract as to an express one. Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. Gaffney, 66 Oh. St. 104, 81 NE 162.
  5. Highway Comrs. v. Bloomington, 253 Ill. 164, 97 NE 280, AnnCas 1913A 471; Indianapolis Coal Tract. Co. v. Dalton, 43 Ind. A. 330, 87 NE 662; Pence v. Beckman, 11 Ind. A. 263, 39 NE 169, 54 AmSR 505; Gillan v. O'Leary, l24 App. Div. 498, 108 NYS 1024; Chilcott v. Trimble, 13 Barb. (N.Y.) 502.
  6. Smith v. Moynihan, 44 Cal. 53; Rose v. Wollenberg, 38 Or. 164, 59 P 190; Coffroth v. Somerset County, 19 Pa. Co. 354.
  7. Ky.-- Belknap v. Hayden, 1 KyL 119, 10 Ky. Op. 652
    Md.-- Burt v. Myer, 71 Md. 467, 18 A 796.
    Mass.-- Newmarket Mfg. Co. v. Coon, 160 Mass. 566, 23 NE 380.
    N.Y.-- Miller v. Schloss, 218 N.Y. 400, 113 NE 387, 89
    Vt.-- Morse v. Kenney, 87 Vt. 445.
    B.C.-- Galbraith v. Hudson's Bay Co., 7 B.C. 431.
    Man.-- Aikens v. Allan, 14 Man. 549; Munro v. Irvine, 9 Man. 121.
    See Godfrey v. White, 43 Mich. 171, 5 NW 243 (holding that a merchant who for his own purposes sends his customers to another dealer does not thereby acquire any claim on him).
    Evidence held not to show promise:
    1. To pay for building material. Citizens Electric Light, etc., Co. v. Van Lent, (Iowa) 103 NW 796.
    2. By a bank to pay the debts of the firm to which it succeeded. Tecumseh Nat. Bank v. Saunders, 50 Nebr. 521, 70 NW 42.
    3. To pay the excess of proceeds of a sale over the debt. Holland v. Laconia Bldg., etc., Assoc. 68 N.H. 480, 41 A 178.
    4. Between creditors to prorate loss. Swingle v. Brown, (Tenn. Ch.) 48 SW 347.
    5. To pay for materials. Limer v. Traders' Co., 44 w. Va. 175, 28 SE 730.
    6. To pay for logs cut. Tuhotte v. Jervis Inlet Lumber Co., (B.C.) 18 WestLR 338.
    7. To pay for repairs to an automobile after a fire in a garage. Helber v. Schaible, 183 Mich. 379, 150 NW 145.
    Evidence held to show implied promise of:
    1. Payment to tenant of damage from fallure to complete building. Ottumwa Mill., etc., Co. v. Manchester, 139 Iowa 134, 116 NW 911.
    2. Payment by person in quarantine for supplies furnished. Plymouth Tp. v. Klug, 28 N.D. 807, 146 NW 130.
    3. Payment for automobile repairs. Helber v. Schaible, 183 Mich. 379, 150 NW 145.
    4. Payment of subcontractor. Schade v. Muller, 75 Or. 216, 146 P l44.
    5. Payment of attorney's fees. Caldwell v. Stalcup, (Tex. Civ. A.) 166 SW 110.
    6. Payment of money at death. Hatch v. Gillette, 8 App. Div. 806, 40 NYS 1018.
    7. Payment for storage. Taylor v. Dexter Engine Co., 146 Mass. 813, 18 NE 462.
  8. Park-Robertson Hardware Co. v. Copeland, 11 Ala. A. 447, 66 S 880; Stobie v. Earp, 110 Mo. A. 73, 83 SW 1097.
    Illustration.--a promise by a debtor, with the assent of his creditor, to pay his debt to a third person may be implied from any words or conduct evidencing such intention. Park-Robertson Hardware Co. v. Copeland, 11 Ala. A. 447, 66 S 880.
  9. Rosenbaum v. Levitt, l09 Iowa 292, 80 NW 393.
  10. Klug v. Sheriffs, 129 Wis. 168, 109 NW 656, 116 AmSR 967, 7 LRANS 362, 9 AnnCas 1013.
    Illustration.--Defendant had delvered to plaintiff two photographs of his deceased wife for the purpose of having a portrait painted therefrom. It was agreed between the parties that the portrait should be painted from a specified one of the photographs. This was done, and the portrait was accepted and paid for by defendant. Thereafter. the artist painted a second portrait from the other photograph and submitted it to plaintif, and it was held that plaintiff, on refusing to return such second portrait, did not become liable to the artist for its value. Klug v. Sheriffs, 129 Wis. 168, 109 NW 656, 116 AmSR 967, 7 LRANS 362, 9 AnnCas 1013.
  11. Irwin v. Jones, 46 Ind. A. 588, 92 NE 787.
  12. Simpson v. Bowden, 33 Me. 549; Bailey v. Sibley Quarry Co., 166 Mich. 321, 129 NW 17; Miller v. Schloss, 218 N.Y. 400, 113 NE 337; Chase v. Second Ave. R. Co., 97 N.Y. 314, 49 AmR 631; Leslie v. Reliable Adv., etc., Agency, [1915] 1 K.B. 652
    Illustration.--That a postmaster keeping his post office in a store in which he is employed as manager by a corporation, and turning over to it the proceeds of the store and post office, neglects to claim or to withdraw his commissions for four or five years does not vest title to them in the corporation, for the law will not imply a contract with reference to the emoluments of a public office. Bailey v. Sibley Quarry Co., 166 Mich. 321, 129 NW 17.
  13. Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. (U.S.) 236, 11 L. ed. 576; American-Hawaiian Engineering, etc., Co. v. Terr., 16 Hawaii 711.
  14. Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Ohio, etc., R. Co., 142 U.S. 398, 12 SCt l33, 35 L. ed. 1055; Swift v. Detroit Rock Salt Co., 233 Fed. 231, 147 CCA 237; Taenzer v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 170 Fed. 240, 95 CCA 436.
  15. See Offer.
  16. See Acceptance.
  17. See Intention to Bind.
  18. Gillan v. O'Leary, 124 App. Div. 498, 502, 108 NYS 1024.
  19. Gillan v. O'Leary, 124 App. Dlv. 498, 501, 108 NYS 1024.
  20. Moore v. Renick, 95 Mo. A. 202, 207, 68 SW 936.
  21. Cuneo v. De Cuneo, 24 Tex. Civ. A. 436, 438, 59 SW 284.
  22. Marvin v. Rogers, 63 Tex. Civ. A. 423, 428, 115 SW 863.
  23. Turner v. Owen, 122 Ill. A. 501, 504.
  24. Jennings v. State Bank, 79 Cal. 323, 326, 21 P 852, 12 AmSR 146, 6 LRA 233.
  25. Davis v. Seymour, 59 Conn. 531, 533, 21 A 1004, 13 LRA 210 (quot 1 Swift Dig. p 182).
  26. Cal. Civ. Code (1903) § 1621; N.D. Rev. Codes (1899) § 3884; Okl. Rev. St. (1903) § 777; S.D. Civ. Code (1903) § 1235.
  27. Hinkle v. Sage, 67 Oh. St. 268, 263, 66 NE 999.
  28. Bixby v. Moore, 61 N.H. 402, 403.
  29. U.S.-- Hawkins v. U.S., 98 U.S. 689. 24 L. ed. 607; Perkins v. Hart, 11 Wheat. 237, 6 L. ed. 463; The Corfe Castle 221 Fed. 98; Amalgamated Gum Co. v. Casein Co., 146 Fed. 900; Arthur v. Baron de Hirsch Fund, 121 Fed. 791, 58 CCA 67 [certiorari den 191 U.S. 570, 24 SCt 842, 48 L. ed. 306]; Krouse v. Deblois, 14 F. Cas. No. 7 937, 1 Cranch C.C. 138; Hartman v. U.S., 40 Ct. Cl. 133.
    Ala.-- Loval v. Wolf, 179 Ala. 505, 60 S 298; Alexander v. Alabama Western R. Co., 179 Ala. 480, 481, 60 S 295 (cit Cyc); Burkham v. Spiers, 56 Ala. 547; Vincent v. Rogers, 30 Ala. 471.
    Ark.-- Jackson v. Jones, 22 Ark. 158; Manuel v. Campbell, 3 Ark. 324.
    Conn.-- Weinhouse v. Cronin, 68 Conn. 250, 36 A 45; King v. Kilbride, 53 Coon. 109, 19 A 519; Leonard v. Dyer, 26 Conn. 172, 68 AmD 382; Weed v. Weed, 22 Conn. 364; Russell v. South Britain Soc., 9 Conn. 508; Shepard v. Palmer, 6 Conn. 95; Hampton v. Windham, 2 Root 199; Snow v. Chapman, 2 Root 99; White v. Woodruff, 1 Root 309; Carew v. Bond, 1 Root 269; Avery v. Kinsman, Kirby 354.
    Del.-- Draper v. Randolph, 4 Del. 454. Ga.-- Baldwin v. Lessner, 8 Ga. 71. Ill.-- Miller v. Duntley, 264 Ill. 268, 106 NE 198; Ford v. McVay, 55 Ill. 119; Walker v. Brown, 28 Ill. 378, 81 Am. Dec. 287; Cast v. Roff, 28 Ill. 462; Brougham v. Paul, 138 Ill. A. 465; Brenzel v. Kirschner, 128 Ill. A. 136; Schiml v. Edgeworth, 118 Ill. A. 332; Ramming v. Caldwell, 43 Ill. A. 175; Ginders v. Ginders, 21 Ill. A. 522; Rollins v. Duffy, 14 Ill. A. 69.
    Ind.-- Long v. Straus, 107 Ind. 94, 6 NE 123, 7 NE 763, 57 AmR 87; Cranmer v. Graham, 1 Blackf. 406.
    Iowa.-- Hall v. Luckman, 107 NW 932; Powell v. Crampton, 102 Iowa 364, 71 NW 579; White v. Jones, 67 Iowa 241, 25 NW 151.
    Kan.-- Ray v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 90 Kan. 244, 133 P 847; Smyser v. Fair, 73 Kan. 733, 86 P 408.
    Ky.-- Morford v. Ambrose, 3 J.J. Marsh, 688; Coffman v. Allin, Litt. Sel. Cas. 200; Pringle v. Samuel, 1 Bibb 172; Fonda v. Smith, 6 KyL 853.
    La.-- Harris v. Louisiana Mach., etc., Co., 112 La. 196, 36 S 320; Mazureau v. Morgan, 25 La. Ann. 281; Willis v. Melville, 19 La. Ann. 13.
    Me.-- Simpson v. Bowden, 33 Me. 549; Charles v. Dana, 14 Me. 383. Md.-- Sherley v. Sherley, 118 Md. 1, 84 A 160; Speake v. Sheppard, 6 Harr. & J. 81; Watkins v. Hodges, 8 Harr. & J. 38; Hannan v. Lee, 1 Harr. & J. 131.
    Mass.-- Brown v. Fales, 139 Mass. 21, 29 NE 211; Zerrahn v. Ditson, 117 Mass. 553; Whiting v. Sullivan, 7 Mass. 107; Worthen v. Stevens, 4 Mass. 448.
    Mich.-- In re De Haan, 169 Mich. 146, 134 NW 983; Cashin v. Pliter, 168 Mich. 388, 134 NW 482, AnnCas 1913C 697; Hickey v. Lundy, 168 Mich. 386, 134 NW 4; Hathaway v. Vaughan, 162 Mich. 269, 127 NW 337; Boughton v. Francis, 111 Mich. 26, 69 NW 94; Schurr v. Savigny, 85 Mich. 144, 48 NW 547; Keystone Lumber, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Dole, 43 Mich. 370, 6 NW 412; Hunt v. Sackett, 31 Mich. 18; Wilson v. Wagar, 26 Mich. 452; Butterfield v. Seligman, 17 Mich. 95; Galloway v. Holmes, 1 Dougl. 330.
    Minn.-- Marcotte v. Beaupre, 15 Minn. 162; Bond v. Corbett, 2 Minn. 248.
    Miss.-- Musgrove v. Jackson, 59 Miss. 390; New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Pressly, 45 Miss. 66; Morrison v. Ives, 12 Miss. 652.
    Mo.-- Chambers v. King, 8 Mo. 617; Stollings v. Sappington, 8 Mo. 118; Christy v. Price, 7 Mo. 430; Johnson v. Strader, 3 Mo. 359; Hicks v. National Surety Co., 169 Mo. A. 479, 155 SW 71; Clarke v. Kane, 37 Mo. A. 258; Lindersmith v. South Missouri Land Co., 31 Mo. A. 258; Houck v. Bridwell, 28 Mo. A. 644; Davidson v. Beirmann, 27 Mo. A. 666; Suits v. Taylor, 20 Mo. A. 166.
    Nebr.-- Powder River Live Stock Co. v. Lamb, 38 Nebr. 339, 56 NW 1019.
    N.H.-- Streeter v. Sumner, 19 N.H. 516; Britton v. Turner, 6 N.H. 481, 26 AmD 713.
    N.J.-- Voorhees v. Combs, 83 N.J. L. 494.
    N.Y.-- Miller v. Schloss, 218 N.Y. 400, 113 NE 337; Watson v. Gugino, 204 N.Y. 636, 911 NE 18, 39 LRANS 1090, AnnCas19UD 216; Glacius v. Black, 60 N.Y. 145, 10 AmR 449; Work v. Beach, 63 Hun 7, 6 NYS 27: Preston v. Yates, 24 Hun 634; Harris v. Story, 2 E.D. Smith 363; Gauld v. Lipman, 4 Misc. 78, 23 NYS 778; Merrill v. Ithaca, etc., R. Co. 16 Wend. 686, 30 AmD 130; Outwater v. Dodge, 7 Cow. 85; Wood v. Edwards, 19 Johns. 206; Clark v. Smith, 14 Johns. 326; Jennings v. Camp, 13 Johns. 94, 7 AmD 367; Raymond v. Bearnard, 12 Johns. 274, 7 AmD 317. And see Patterson v. Kelly, 59 Hun 626, 14 NYS 111.
    N.C.-- Morganton Mfg., etc., Co. v. Andrews, 165 N.C. 285, 290, 81 SE 418, AnnCas1916A 763 (cit Cyc); Lindsay v. Hamburg Bremen Ins. Co., 115 N. C. 212, 20 SE 870; Lawrence v. Hester, 93 N.C. 79; Dula v. Cowles, 47 N.C. 454; Winstead v. Reid, 44 N.C. 76, 57 AmD 571.
    Oh.-- Kachelmacher v. Laird, 92 Oh. St. 324, 110 NE 933; Abbott v. Inskip, 29 Oh. St. 59; Creighton v. Toledo, 18 Oh. St. 447; Hall v. Blake, Wright 489; Halloway v. Davis, Wright 129.
    Or.-- Fiske v. Kellogg, 3 Or. 603.
    Pa.-- Musser v. Ferguson Tp., 6& Pa. 476.
    S.C.-- Suber v. Pullin, 1 S.C. 273; Wood v. Ashe, 32 S. C. L. 407; Stent v. Hunt, 21 S.C. L. 225.
    Tex.-- Gammage v. Alexander, 14 Tex. 414; Prichard v. Foster, (Civ. A.) 170 SW 1077, 1079 (cit Cyc); Sanborn v. E. R. Roach Drug Co., (Civ. A.) 137 SW 182, 183 {cit Cyc); Armstrong v. Cleveland, 32 Tex. Civ. A. 482, 74 SW 789.
    Vt.-- Hemenway v. Smith, 28 Vt. 701; Camp v. Barker, 21 Vt 469.
    Wis.-- Appleton Waterworks Co. v. Appleton, 132 Wis. 663, 113 NW 44; Tletz v. Tietz, 90 Wis. 66, 62 NW 939; Maynard v. Tidball, 2 Wis. 34.
    Eng.-- James v. Cotton, 7 Bing. 266, 20 ECL 126, 131 Reprint 103; Hulle v. Heightman, 2 East 146, 102 Reprint 324; Selway v. Fogg, 5 M. & W. 83, 151 Reprint 38; Cutter v. Powell, 6 T.R. 320, 101 Reprint 673, 6 ERC 627; Toussaint v. Martinnant, 3 T.R. 104, 100 Reprint 65.
    Can.-- Allcroft v. Adams, 38 Can. S.C. 366; Connolly v. St. John, 35 Can. S.C. 186.
    Man.-- Knox v. Munro, 13 Man. 16.
  30. Walker v. Brown, 28 Ill. 378, 81 AmD 287; Morganton Mfg., etc., Co. v. Andrews, 186 N.C. 286, 81 SE 418. AnnCas1916A 763.
  31. Walker v. Brown, 28 Ill. 378, 81 AmD 287
  32. Wheeling, etc., R. Co. v. Carpenter, 218 Fed. 273, 134 CCA 69; Rogers v. Becker-Brainard Milling Mach. Co., 211 Mass. 669, 98 NE 692; Wilson v. Dietrich, (N.J. Ch.) 59 A 251; Commercial Bank v. Pfeiffer, 22 Hun 327 [aff 108 N.Y. 242, 16 NE 311].
  33. Efron v. Stees, 113 Minn. 242, 129 NW 374; Murphy v. Quigley, 21 Oh. Cir. Ct. 313, 11 Oh. Cir. Dec. 638.
  34. U.S.-- Columbia Bank v. Patterson, 7 Cranch 299, 3 L. ed. 351.
    Colo.-- Cody v. Raynaud, 1 Colo. 272.
    Ill.-- Walker v. Brown, 28 Ill. 378, 81 AmD 287.
    Miss.-- Morrison v. Ives, 12 Miss. 652.
    Eng.-- Towers v. Barrett, 1 T.R. 133, 99 Reprint 1014.
  35. Columbia Bank v. Patterson, 7 Cranch 299, 3 L. ed. 351.
    Conn.-- Londregon v. Crowley, 12 Conn. 558.
    Ill.-- Walker v. Brown, 28 Ill. 378, 81 AmD 287; Holmes v. Stummel, 24 Ill. 370.
    Me.-- Charles v. Dana, 14 Me. 383,
    Eng.-- James v. Cotton, 7 Bing. 266, 20 ECL 125, 131 Reprint 103.
  36. Walker v. Brown, 28 Ill. 378, 81 AmD 287; Gay v. Mooney, 67 N.J.L. 27, 50 A 596 (aff 67 N.J.L. 687, 52 A 1131) (where the agreement was to devise land in payment and it was unenforceable because of the statute of frauds)