Kopplin v. Kopplin
Court of Appeals of Texas
Appeal from Comal. Tried below before Hon. Eugene Archer. 1. Either party to an agreement based upon a valuable consideration, after he has performed his part of said agreement, can maintain an action for specific performance on part of the other party if he refuses to perform his part, when in the nature of the case such periormance is possible, and damages would not be a full or adequate remedy.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Comal. Tried below before Hon. Eugene Archer. 1. Either party to an agreement based upon a valuable consideration, after he has performed his part of said agreement, can maintain an action for specific performance on part of the other party if he refuses to perform his part, when in the nature of the case such periormance is possible, and damages would not be a full or adequate remedy. Tuttle v. Monroe, 16 Minn., 123; McMullen v. Yanzant, 73 111., 190; Hall v. Hiles, 2 Bush (Ky.), 532; Kidley v. Henderson, 43 Texas, 134: Stover v. Railway, 2 You. & Coll., 48; Carpenter v. Ins.…
1Opinion of the Court
FISHER, Chief Justice.
The trial court sustained a general demurrer to the appellant’s petition, stating in effect as follows: That heretofore he, plaintiff, purchased a large tract of land from defendant, as witnessed by a deed dated May 4, 1892, for the consideration of $12,000; that $800 were paid to defendant in cash on said day, and plaintiff’s promissory note with vendor’s lien was given for the remaining $11,200, said note bearing even date with said deed, payable on or before seven years after date, payable to Albert Kopplin, defendant, or order, with interest at 7 per cent, payable…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Day Land & Cattle Co. v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1887
- Dobbins v. ObermanNebraska Supreme Court · 1885
- Switzer v. GardnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
3Cited by2 opinions
- Sabine Valley Timber & Lumber Co. v. CagleCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
- Sabine Valley Timber & Lumber Co. v. CagleCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912