Schmid v. Whitten
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before -DeVorE, J., ■ Oconee, November term, 1919. Action by W. D. Schmid against Geo. B. Whitten for specific performance.
Read the full summary
Before -DeVorE, J., ■ Oconee, November term, 1919. Action by W. D. Schmid against Geo. B. Whitten for specific performance. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. cites: To be valid tender must be unconditional and must be of a definite and certain chcu'acter: 1 N. & McC. 194; 15 Rich. 318; 116 Ga. 53; 115 Ga. 691; 103 Ga. 651; 7 Utah 519. And of sufficient amount: 28 Ency. 17. Tender must be kept good: 88 S. C. 533; 28 Enc. 41; 38 Cyc. 171. Words “good and sufficient titles” is not equivalent to title free of encumbrance with dower renounced: Bail. Eq. 379; 1 Civ. Code 3454; 3 Watts…
1Opinion of the Court
June 28, 1920. The opinion of the Court was delivered by I dissent to the opinion of the Chief Justice.* This being an action for specific performance, it is within the discretion of the Court whether it will decree it or not. The facts in the case are not such as will appeal to a Court of justice and good conscience that a decree should be made. Either party could breach the contract or option for sale if they saw proper to do so. I do not know of any law to prevent any person breaking a contract. When they do so they must respond in damages in so doing, if the aggrieved party sustains any.…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Sumner v. BankheadSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1922
- Scarborough v. RegisterSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1923
- Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Alessi & Koenig, LLCDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2014
- Sumner v. BankheadSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1922
- Sumner v. BankheadSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1922
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.