The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

On 24 October 1934, P and his wife leased to D a lot for a filling station. The lease was for ten years with the privilege of buying at any time during the term of the lease at a price of $ 5,000. The lease disclaimed any guarantee that the present water supply would be sufficient. D was required to make their own arrangements if the water supply was insufficient. In June 1935, D needed more water. P and D engaged C. W. Fisher to drill a well on the premises, each agreeing to pay one-half the cost. D paid its half, amounting to $329.00, and P credited Fisher with a like amount on his grocery bill. There was a written contract signed by all the parties to drill the well and share the costs. P and D orally agreed that if D exercised its option to buy the premises D 'would repay P his one-half paid for boring said well, but if the defendant did not exercise the option to buy, then the well would belong to P and he would not be reimbursed the one-half he had paid.' D purchased the lot but did not pay P and P sued. D pleaded the statute of frauds, satisfaction by the deed of conveyance, and no consideration for the alleged oral agreement to reimburse P. P got the verdict and D appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.