Scotten v. Brown

Decided July 5, 1845

Superior Court of Delaware · decided 1845-07-05

/The plaintiff proved a clearing of a certain meadow for defendant; and that it was worth $30 to clear it. The defence was, that Brown was the tenant of defendant on a farm for five years, and that he cleared this meadow which was not a part of the farm, for his own benefit, without any agreement on the part of defendant to pay him any thing.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 2014

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1845-07-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 The Court:

Booth, Chief Justice.

¶2 —The statute of frauds introduces no new principle, but a new rule of evidence, requiring that contracts relating to lands shall be evidenced by writing and not otherwise. This rule is to prevent perjury, by avoiding the danger and removing the inducements to false swearing in relation to contracts relating to lands. The danger in this respect, and the necessity of the rule which the statute prescribes, are equally strong, whether the suit is directly upon the contract, or the contract is sought to be proved incidentally and by way of defence. The only question then is, whether this contract is for or concerning such an interest in lands as is within the statute 1 and being of the opinion that it is, we rule out any paroi evidence of such a contract.

¶3 This ended the case, and the plaintiff below had a verdict.