Orestes v. Galanis
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Bill in Equity, for the specific performance of a written agreement to convey land. Decree for the plaintiff. Transferred by Allen, J., from the January term, 1917, of the superior court on the defendant’s exception to the exclusion of evidence as to the extent of the plaintiff’s damages and to the court’s refusal to set aside the decree because the plaintiff had an adequate legal remedy.
1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.
The question raised by the defendant’s exception to the court’s refusal to vacate the decree is not, as he appears to think, the same as it would be if the agreement were not in writing. In such a case relief is refused unless that would operate as a fraud on the plaintiff. Muir v. Bartlett, ante, 313. But when the agreement is in writing, relief is granted as a matter of course, if the court finds that compelling the defendant to convey would be equitable. Norris v. Clark, 72 N. H. 442; Pierce v. Morse, 65 N. H. 196; Ewins v. Gordon, 49 N. H. 444; 36 Cyc. 552.
• In this case there is such a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Norris v. ClarkSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1904
- Pierce v. MorseSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1889
3Cited by2 opinions
- Manchester Dairy System, Inc. v. HaywardSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926
- Dunlap v. FossSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926