Schmeling v. Kriesel
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Dodge County. The action is for the specific performance of a contract for the sale, by tbe defendant Frederick Kriesel to the plaintiffs, of a certain parcel of land.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Dodge County. The action is for the specific performance of a contract for the sale, by tbe defendant Frederick Kriesel to the plaintiffs, of a certain parcel of land. The contract, which is made a part of the complaint, is as follows: “ On this 24th day of May, 1877, Frederick Kriesel and Ms wife have sold to William Sehmeling and Carl Lentz their 40 acres of land in section 18, town of Herman, for the sum of twenty-one hundred dollars; both deeds were to-day signed and left in the hands of the notary; possession of land is first to be given on the 1st of…
1Opinion of the CourtLyoN, J.
No rule is better established than is the rule that a court of equity will not decree specific performance of a contract unless the terms of the contract are clearly and definitely expressed. If the court is unable from the contract itself, aided by authorized legal presumption, to arrive at a clear result of what all its essential terms are, the contract will not be specifically enforced. 1 Story’s Eq. Jur., § 767; Ery on Specific Performance, §§ 203, 223, and cases cited in notes. See also Blanchard v. McDougal, 6 Wis., 167; Knoll v. Harvey, 19 id., 99; Tiernan v. Gibney, 24 id., 190.
The…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Campbell v. ThomasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
- Blanchard v. McDougalWisconsin Supreme Court · 1858
- Waterman v. DuttonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by20 opinions
- Klein v. MarkarianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Williams v. StewartSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
- Thoemke v. FiedlerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
- Rahm v. CummingsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Buck v. PondWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.