part performance doctrine in Missouri

11 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1891–2025 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (14)

Case	Followed	Cited
Alonzo v. Laubertgreen mo · 1967 · cited in 3 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1981–2025 2 sentences 2025Notably, “[t]he doctrine of part performance, interposed to avoid the defense of the statute of frauds, is a creature of equity and has no application to an action at law for breach of contract.” Urologic Surgeons, Inc. v. Bullock, 117 S.W.3d 722, 728 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (quoting Haugland v. Parsons, 863 S.W.2d 609, 610 (Mo. App. E.D.1992)); see also Alonzo v. Laubert, 418 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Mo. 1967). 1992However, the doctrine of part performance is inapplicable in this case. “[T]he doctrine of part performance, interposed to avoid the defense of the statute of frauds, is a creature of equity and has no application to an action at law for breach of contract.” Whaling v. Little Piney Oil Co., 623 S.W.2d 589, 592 (Mo.App.1981), citing Alonzo v. Laubert, 418 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Mo.1967).	3	3
Haugland v. Parsonsgreen moctapp · 1992 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2003–2025 2 sentences 2025Notably, “[t]he doctrine of part performance, interposed to avoid the defense of the statute of frauds, is a creature of equity and has no application to an action at law for breach of contract.” Urologic Surgeons, Inc. v. Bullock, 117 S.W.3d 722, 728 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (quoting Haugland v. Parsons, 863 S.W.2d 609, 610 (Mo. App. E.D.1992)); see also Alonzo v. Laubert, 418 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Mo. 1967). 2003However, “[t]he doctrine of part performance, interposed to avoid the defense of the statute of frauds, is a creature of equity and has no application to an action at law for breach of contract.” Haugland, v. Parsons, 863 S.W.2d 609, 610 (Mo.App.	2	2
Whaling v. Little Piney Oil Co.green moctapp · 1981 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1992–2003 2 sentences 2003E.D.1992), quoting Whaling v. Little Piney Oil Co., 623 S.W.2d 589, 592 (Mo.App. 1992However, the doctrine of part performance is inapplicable in this case. “[T]he doctrine of part performance, interposed to avoid the defense of the statute of frauds, is a creature of equity and has no application to an action at law for breach of contract.” Whaling v. Little Piney Oil Co., 623 S.W.2d 589, 592 (Mo.App.1981), citing Alonzo v. Laubert, 418 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Mo.1967).	2	2
Aylor v. McInturfgreen moctapp · 1914 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1928–1981 2 sentences 1981Alonzo v. Laubert, 418 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Mo.1967); Pemberton v. Ladue Realty & Const. Co., 362 Mo. 768 , 244 S.W.2d 62, 64 [2] (1961); Shy v. Lewis, 321 Mo. 688 , 12 S.W.2d 719, 720 (1928); Nally v. Reading, 107 Mo. 350 , 17 S.W. 978 , 979 (1891); Newkirk v. Moley, 343 S.W.2d 213, 217 (Mo.App.1960); Waller v. Tootle-Campbell Dry Goods Co., 59 S.W.2d 751 , 754 (Mo.App.1933); Dim ick v. Snyder, 34 S.W.2d 1004 , 1007 (Mo.App.1931); Diamon v. Wells, 226 S.W. 1016 , 1018 (Mo.App.1920); Hillis v. Rhodes, 205 Mo.App. 439 , 223 S.W. 972, 974 (1920); Aylor et al. v. McInturf, 184 Mo. App. 691 , 171 S.W. 6 1928In Nally v. Reading, 107 Mo. 350 , the question of whether a part performance took the case out of the Statute of Frauds was fully considered and determined, and therein it was said, at page 355: "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." That rule has been uniformly followed. [Sursa v. Cash, 171 Mo. App. l.c. 403; Aylor v. McInturf, 184 Mo. App. 691 ; Hillis v. Rhodes, 205 Mo. App. l.c. 449; Davis v. Holloway, 295 S.W. l.c. 108; Shacklett v. Cummins, 178 Mo. App. l.c. 311.] The Nally case	1	2
Urologic Surgeons, Inc. v. Bullockgreen moctapp · 2003 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025Notably, “[t]he doctrine of part performance, interposed to avoid the defense of the statute of frauds, is a creature of equity and has no application to an action at law for breach of contract.” Urologic Surgeons, Inc. v. Bullock, 117 S.W.3d 722, 728 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (quoting Haugland v. Parsons, 863 S.W.2d 609, 610 (Mo. App. E.D.1992)); see also Alonzo v. Laubert, 418 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Mo. 1967).	1	1
Midwest Energy, Inc. v. Orion Food Systems, Inc.green moctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025See Midwest Energy, Inc. v. Orion Food Sys., Inc., 14 S.W.3d 154, 158 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) (“Our cases clearly hold that 13 a contract otherwise unenforceable because of the Statute of Frauds cannot be made into a fully enforceable contract through any doctrine of promissory estoppel.”).	1	1
Wills v. Alcorngreen moctapp · 1982 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987 1 sentence 1987Defendants make no claim that plaintiffs’ title was defective. “[T]he statute of frauds has no application where there has been a full and complete performance of the contract by one of the contracting parties, and the party so performing may sue oh the contract in a court of law_” Trimmer v. Short, 492 S.W.2d 179, 183 [1] (Mo.App.1973); to similar effect see Wills v. Alcorn, 636 S.W.2d 142, 146 [6] (Mo.App.1982); Justus v. Webb, 634 S.W.2d 567, 569 [5] (Mo.App.1982).	1	1
Trimmer v. Shortgreen moctapp · 1973 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987 1 sentence 1987Defendants make no claim that plaintiffs’ title was defective. “[T]he statute of frauds has no application where there has been a full and complete performance of the contract by one of the contracting parties, and the party so performing may sue oh the contract in a court of law_” Trimmer v. Short, 492 S.W.2d 179, 183 [1] (Mo.App.1973); to similar effect see Wills v. Alcorn, 636 S.W.2d 142, 146 [6] (Mo.App.1982); Justus v. Webb, 634 S.W.2d 567, 569 [5] (Mo.App.1982).	1	1
Justus v. Webbgreen moctapp · 1982 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987 1 sentence 1987Defendants make no claim that plaintiffs’ title was defective. “[T]he statute of frauds has no application where there has been a full and complete performance of the contract by one of the contracting parties, and the party so performing may sue oh the contract in a court of law_” Trimmer v. Short, 492 S.W.2d 179, 183 [1] (Mo.App.1973); to similar effect see Wills v. Alcorn, 636 S.W.2d 142, 146 [6] (Mo.App.1982); Justus v. Webb, 634 S.W.2d 567, 569 [5] (Mo.App.1982).	1	1
Pemberton v. Ladue Realty & Construction Co.green mo · 1951 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 2 sentences 1981Alonzo v. Laubert, 418 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Mo.1967); Pemberton v. Ladue Realty & Const. Co., 362 Mo. 768 , 244 S.W.2d 62, 64 [2] (1961); Shy v. Lewis, 321 Mo. 688 , 12 S.W.2d 719, 720 (1928); Nally v. Reading, 107 Mo. 350 , 17 S.W. 978 , 979 (1891); Newkirk v. Moley, 343 S.W.2d 213, 217 (Mo.App.1960); Waller v. Tootle-Campbell Dry Goods Co., 59 S.W.2d 751 , 754 (Mo.App.1933); Dim ick v. Snyder, 34 S.W.2d 1004 , 1007 (Mo.App.1931); Diamon v. Wells, 226 S.W. 1016 , 1018 (Mo.App.1920); Hillis v. Rhodes, 205 Mo.App. 439 , 223 S.W. 972, 974 (1920); Aylor et al. v. McInturf, 184 Mo. App. 691 , 171 S.W. 6 1981Alonzo v. Laubert, 418 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Mo.1967); Pemberton v. Ladue Realty & Const. Co., 362 Mo. 768 , 244 S.W.2d 62, 64 [2] (1961); Shy v. Lewis, 321 Mo. 688 , 12 S.W.2d 719, 720 (1928); Nally v. Reading, 107 Mo. 350 , 17 S.W. 978 , 979 (1891); Newkirk v. Moley, 343 S.W.2d 213, 217 (Mo.App.1960); Waller v. Tootle-Campbell Dry Goods Co., 59 S.W.2d 751 , 754 (Mo.App.1933); Dim ick v. Snyder, 34 S.W.2d 1004 , 1007 (Mo.App.1931); Diamon v. Wells, 226 S.W. 1016 , 1018 (Mo.App.1920); Hillis v. Rhodes, 205 Mo.App. 439 , 223 S.W. 972, 974 (1920); Aylor et al. v. McInturf, 184 Mo. App. 691 , 171 S.W. 6	1	1
Hillis v. Rhodesgreen · 1920 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 2 sentences 1981Alonzo v. Laubert, 418 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Mo.1967); Pemberton v. Ladue Realty & Const. Co., 362 Mo. 768 , 244 S.W.2d 62, 64 [2] (1961); Shy v. Lewis, 321 Mo. 688 , 12 S.W.2d 719, 720 (1928); Nally v. Reading, 107 Mo. 350 , 17 S.W. 978 , 979 (1891); Newkirk v. Moley, 343 S.W.2d 213, 217 (Mo.App.1960); Waller v. Tootle-Campbell Dry Goods Co., 59 S.W.2d 751 , 754 (Mo.App.1933); Dim ick v. Snyder, 34 S.W.2d 1004 , 1007 (Mo.App.1931); Diamon v. Wells, 226 S.W. 1016 , 1018 (Mo.App.1920); Hillis v. Rhodes, 205 Mo.App. 439 , 223 S.W. 972, 974 (1920); Aylor et al. v. McInturf, 184 Mo. App. 691 , 171 S.W. 6 1981Alonzo v. Laubert, 418 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Mo.1967); Pemberton v. Ladue Realty & Const. Co., 362 Mo. 768 , 244 S.W.2d 62, 64 [2] (1961); Shy v. Lewis, 321 Mo. 688 , 12 S.W.2d 719, 720 (1928); Nally v. Reading, 107 Mo. 350 , 17 S.W. 978 , 979 (1891); Newkirk v. Moley, 343 S.W.2d 213, 217 (Mo.App.1960); Waller v. Tootle-Campbell Dry Goods Co., 59 S.W.2d 751 , 754 (Mo.App.1933); Dim ick v. Snyder, 34 S.W.2d 1004 , 1007 (Mo.App.1931); Diamon v. Wells, 226 S.W. 1016 , 1018 (Mo.App.1920); Hillis v. Rhodes, 205 Mo.App. 439 , 223 S.W. 972, 974 (1920); Aylor et al. v. McInturf, 184 Mo. App. 691 , 171 S.W. 6	1	1
Shy v. Lewisgreen mo · 1928 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 2 sentences 1981Alonzo v. Laubert, 418 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Mo.1967); Pemberton v. Ladue Realty & Const. Co., 362 Mo. 768 , 244 S.W.2d 62, 64 [2] (1961); Shy v. Lewis, 321 Mo. 688 , 12 S.W.2d 719, 720 (1928); Nally v. Reading, 107 Mo. 350 , 17 S.W. 978 , 979 (1891); Newkirk v. Moley, 343 S.W.2d 213, 217 (Mo.App.1960); Waller v. Tootle-Campbell Dry Goods Co., 59 S.W.2d 751 , 754 (Mo.App.1933); Dim ick v. Snyder, 34 S.W.2d 1004 , 1007 (Mo.App.1931); Diamon v. Wells, 226 S.W. 1016 , 1018 (Mo.App.1920); Hillis v. Rhodes, 205 Mo.App. 439 , 223 S.W. 972, 974 (1920); Aylor et al. v. McInturf, 184 Mo. App. 691 , 171 S.W. 6 1981Alonzo v. Laubert, 418 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Mo.1967); Pemberton v. Ladue Realty & Const. Co., 362 Mo. 768 , 244 S.W.2d 62, 64 [2] (1961); Shy v. Lewis, 321 Mo. 688 , 12 S.W.2d 719, 720 (1928); Nally v. Reading, 107 Mo. 350 , 17 S.W. 978 , 979 (1891); Newkirk v. Moley, 343 S.W.2d 213, 217 (Mo.App.1960); Waller v. Tootle-Campbell Dry Goods Co., 59 S.W.2d 751 , 754 (Mo.App.1933); Dim ick v. Snyder, 34 S.W.2d 1004 , 1007 (Mo.App.1931); Diamon v. Wells, 226 S.W. 1016 , 1018 (Mo.App.1920); Hillis v. Rhodes, 205 Mo.App. 439 , 223 S.W. 972, 974 (1920); Aylor et al. v. McInturf, 184 Mo. App. 691 , 171 S.W. 6	1	1
Sursa v. Cashgreen moctapp · 1913 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 2 sentences 1981Alonzo v. Laubert, 418 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Mo.1967); Pemberton v. Ladue Realty & Const. Co., 362 Mo. 768 , 244 S.W.2d 62, 64 [2] (1961); Shy v. Lewis, 321 Mo. 688 , 12 S.W.2d 719, 720 (1928); Nally v. Reading, 107 Mo. 350 , 17 S.W. 978 , 979 (1891); Newkirk v. Moley, 343 S.W.2d 213, 217 (Mo.App.1960); Waller v. Tootle-Campbell Dry Goods Co., 59 S.W.2d 751 , 754 (Mo.App.1933); Dim ick v. Snyder, 34 S.W.2d 1004 , 1007 (Mo.App.1931); Diamon v. Wells, 226 S.W. 1016 , 1018 (Mo.App.1920); Hillis v. Rhodes, 205 Mo.App. 439 , 223 S.W. 972, 974 (1920); Aylor et al. v. McInturf, 184 Mo. App. 691 , 171 S.W. 6 1981Alonzo v. Laubert, 418 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Mo.1967); Pemberton v. Ladue Realty & Const. Co., 362 Mo. 768 , 244 S.W.2d 62, 64 [2] (1961); Shy v. Lewis, 321 Mo. 688 , 12 S.W.2d 719, 720 (1928); Nally v. Reading, 107 Mo. 350 , 17 S.W. 978 , 979 (1891); Newkirk v. Moley, 343 S.W.2d 213, 217 (Mo.App.1960); Waller v. Tootle-Campbell Dry Goods Co., 59 S.W.2d 751 , 754 (Mo.App.1933); Dim ick v. Snyder, 34 S.W.2d 1004 , 1007 (Mo.App.1931); Diamon v. Wells, 226 S.W. 1016 , 1018 (Mo.App.1920); Hillis v. Rhodes, 205 Mo.App. 439 , 223 S.W. 972, 974 (1920); Aylor et al. v. McInturf, 184 Mo. App. 691 , 171 S.W. 6	1	1
Newkirk v. Moleygreen moctapp · 1960 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 1 sentence 1981Alonzo v. Laubert, 418 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Mo.1967); Pemberton v. Ladue Realty & Const. Co., 362 Mo. 768 , 244 S.W.2d 62, 64 [2] (1961); Shy v. Lewis, 321 Mo. 688 , 12 S.W.2d 719, 720 (1928); Nally v. Reading, 107 Mo. 350 , 17 S.W. 978 , 979 (1891); Newkirk v. Moley, 343 S.W.2d 213, 217 (Mo.App.1960); Waller v. Tootle-Campbell Dry Goods Co., 59 S.W.2d 751 , 754 (Mo.App.1933); Dim ick v. Snyder, 34 S.W.2d 1004 , 1007 (Mo.App.1931); Diamon v. Wells, 226 S.W. 1016 , 1018 (Mo.App.1920); Hillis v. Rhodes, 205 Mo.App. 439 , 223 S.W. 972, 974 (1920); Aylor et al. v. McInturf, 184 Mo. App. 691 , 171 S.W. 6	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
Nally v. Reading neutral mo · 1891 2 sentences 1981Alonzo v. Laubert, 418 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Mo.1967); Pemberton v. Ladue Realty & Const. Co., 362 Mo. 768 , 244 S.W.2d 62, 64 [2] (1961); Shy v. Lewis, 321 Mo. 688 , 12 S.W.2d 719, 720 (1928); Nally v. Reading, 107 Mo. 350 , 17 S.W. 978 , 979 (1891); Newkirk v. Moley, 343 S.W.2d 213, 217 (Mo.App.1960); Waller v. Tootle-Campbell Dry Goods Co., 59 S.W.2d 751 , 754 (Mo.App.1933); Dim ick v. Snyder, 34 S.W.2d 1004 , 1007 (Mo.App.1931); Diamon v. Wells, 226 S.W. 1016 , 1018 (Mo.App.1920); Hillis v. Rhodes, 205 Mo.App. 439 , 223 S.W. 972, 974 (1920); Aylor et al. v. McInturf, 184 Mo. App. 691 , 171 S.W. 6 1928In Nally v. Reading, 107 Mo. 350 , the question of whether a part performance took the case out of the Statute of Frauds was fully considered and determined, and therein it was said, at page 355: "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." That rule has been uniformly followed. [Sursa v. Cash, 171 Mo. App. l.c. 403; Aylor v. McInturf, 184 Mo. App. 691 ; Hillis v. Rhodes, 205 Mo. App. l.c. 449; Davis v. Holloway, 295 S.W. l.c. 108; Shacklett v. Cummins, 178 Mo. App. l.c. 311.] The Nally case	2	1928–1981
Reigart v. Manufacturers Coal & Coke Co. green · 1909 2 sentences 1928In Nally v. Reading, 107 Mo. 350 , the question of whether a part performance took the case out of the Statute of Frauds was fully considered and determined, and therein it was said, at page 355: "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." That rule has been uniformly followed. [Sursa v. Cash, 171 Mo. App. l.c. 403; Aylor v. McInturf, 184 Mo. App. 691 ; Hillis v. Rhodes, 205 Mo. App. l.c. 449; Davis v. Holloway, 295 S.W. l.c. 108; Shacklett v. Cummins, 178 Mo. App. l.c. 311.] The Nally case 1912Whatever 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.” This doctrine was reaffirmed and this language quoted with approval in Reigart v. Coal & Coke Co., 217 Mo. 142 , l. c. 163, 164, 117 S. W. 61 .	2	1912–1928
Johnson v. Reading neutral moctapp · 1889 2 sentences 1914This doctrine that part performance will take a case out of the operation of the statute is purely one in equity and has no application in a suit at law. [Johnson v. Reading, 36 Mo. App. 306, 1 . c. 314.] No amount of part performance will remove the bar of the statute in a suit at law. [29 Am. & Eng. 1891It is unnecessary to review the authorities in this state ; that has been well done by Rombatjeb, P. J., in 36 Mo. App. 306 .	2	1891–1914
Johnson v. Cook green moctapp · 2005 1 sentence 2025Johnson, 167 S.W.3d at 264 .	1	2025–2025
Jones v. Linder green mo · 1952 2 sentences 1992In Jones v. Linder, 247 S.W.2d 817 (Mo.1952), our Supreme Court stated that a party who satisfies the requirements of the doctrine of part performance may be “entitled to specific performance of the oral agreement, or to damages for the breach thereof in instances where specific performance is not possible in whole or in part.” Id. at 820 . 1992In Jones v. Linder, 247 S.W.2d 817 (Mo.1952), our Supreme Court stated that a party who satisfies the requirements of the doctrine of part performance may be “entitled to specific performance of the oral agreement, or to damages for the breach thereof in instances where specific performance is not possible in whole or in part.” Id. at 820 .	1	1992–1992
Briggs v. Munchon neutral mo · 1874 1 sentence 1928Counsel for plaintiffs also make the contention that as the land was sold at auction, and was advertised beforehand, the advertisement of the sale formed a part of the contract of sale, and call attention to Briggs v. Munchon, 56 Mo. 467 , and Springer v. Kleinsorge, 83 Mo. 152 .	1	1928–1928
Springer v. Kleinsorge green mo · 1884 1 sentence 1928Counsel for plaintiffs also make the contention that as the land was sold at auction, and was advertised beforehand, the advertisement of the sale formed a part of the contract of sale, and call attention to Briggs v. Munchon, 56 Mo. 467 , and Springer v. Kleinsorge, 83 Mo. 152 .	1	1928–1928
Mason v. Bair neutral · 1864 1 sentence 1914They are cases of the sale of land by parol, where the purchaser pays the purchase money, enters into possession, and, holding under his purchase, makes valuable and lasting improvements. [Mason et al. v. Blair, 33 Ill. 194 .] We recollect no case where this doctrine of part performance has been applied to a lease and in a court of law.	1	1914–1914
Dozier v. Matson neutral mo · 1887 1 sentence 1892Dozier v. Matson, supra, and cases cited.	1	1892–1892
Sharp v. Rhiel neutral mo · 1874 1 sentence 1891Whatever 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 .	1	1891–1891

Where else courts name it

NY 55 (1951–2025) WA 23 (1925–2022) CT 20 (1981–2014) OH 19 (1981–2025) AL 18 (1942–2011) ID 17 (1982–2023) IN 16 (1892–2025) UT 13 (1977–2022) ME 12 (2004–2020) MO 11 (1891–2025) AZ 11 (1977–2025) FL 9 (1974–2024) MI 9 (1917–2023) MD 9 (1939–1998) IL 8 (1986–2025) CA 8 (1930–2024) ND 7 (1903–2021) CO 7 (1983–2005) MN 6 (1909–2016) SC 6 (1984–2022) PA 6 (1982–2026) TN 6 (1983–2011) OR 6 (1975–2008) WI 5 (1945–2024) RI 5 (1991–2011) TX 5 (1967–2015) IA 5 (1939–2014) NC 5 (1920–2010) WY 4 (1993–2012) VA 4 (1851–2005) MT 3 (1926–2017) SD 3 (1912–2018) NJ 3 (1986–2013) DC 3 (1984–1998) NH 3 (2008–2017) DE 3 (1975–2019) VT 3 (1986–2015) GA 2 (2019–2022) KS 2 (1930–2018) KY 2 (1935–1947) NV 2 (1985–2018) NM 2 (2010–2021) VI 2 (1977–2025)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check