Smith v. Wilson
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Linn Circuit Court. — Hon. W. W. Rucker, Judge. (1) In order to entitle a party to specific performance, tbe contract must be a certain, mutual one, capable of being enforced against either one of the parties. There being no means of enforcing the contract sued on against the plaintiff, it lacked mutuality, and as there was no equity in the bill, it should have been dismissed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Linn Circuit Court. — Hon. W. W. Rucker, Judge. (1) In order to entitle a party to specific performance, tbe contract must be a certain, mutual one, capable of being enforced against either one of the parties. There being no means of enforcing the contract sued on against the plaintiff, it lacked mutuality, and as there was no equity in the bill, it should have been dismissed. Glass v. Rowe, 103 Mo. 513; Waterman, Specific Performance, ^ec. 196; Berry v. Hantzell, 91 Mo. 132; Mastín v. Halley, 61 Mo. 200; 1 Story, Eq. Jur., secs. 723, 736, 751; Olampet v. Bells, 39 N. W. 495. (2)…
1Opinion of the CourtBurgess, J.
On the thirtieth day of December, 1897, plaintiff, through an agent, bought from defendant a tract of land containing five acres, of which he was the owner, at the price of five hundred dollars, and as part of the purchase money, paid him twenty dollars, at the same time defendant executing to her an instrument of writing in words and figures as follows :
“$20.00. Laclede, Mo., December 30, 1897.
“Received of Mrs. Anna Smith twenty dollars in part payment of the purchase money for 5 acres of land in the S. W. corner of the N. E. 1-4 Sec. 5-57-20, Linn Co., Mo., which I have to day sold to her…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- M'Crea v. PurmortCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1836
- Parkhurst v. Van CortlandtNew York Court of Chancery · 1814
- Clason v. BaileyCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1817
- Davis v. ShieldsNew York Supreme Court · 1841
- Mastin v. GrimesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Ray v. WoosterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1954
- Aiple-Hemmelmann Real Estate Co. v. SpelbrinkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- Kludt v. ConnettSupreme Court of Missouri · 1943
- Lusco v. TavitianSupreme Court of Missouri · 1956
- Darnell v. LaffertyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.