Chambers v. Lecompte
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from St. Louis Circuit Couit. 1. The case described in the bill comes within one of the classes of cases in which chancery will decree a specific performance, notwithstanding the statutes. See Fonblanqiie’s Equity, p. 150 — top page; Sugden on Vendors, bottom page, 114 & 115; 2 Story’s Equity Commentaries, page 66. 2. Even if the contract described in the bill had not been specific in its terms, it could not be dismissed.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from St. Louis Circuit Couit. 1. The case described in the bill comes within one of the classes of cases in which chancery will decree a specific performance, notwithstanding the statutes. See Fonblanqiie’s Equity, p. 150 — top page; Sugden on Vendors, bottom page, 114 & 115; 2 Story’s Equity Commentaries, page 66. 2. Even if the contract described in the bill had not been specific in its terms, it could not be dismissed. See 2d Story’s Equity Commentaries, p. 70, note 3, and the authorities there cited; Parkhurst vs. Van' Cortland, 1 John. Ch. R. 283. 3. If M. P. Leduc had been living…
1Opinion of the CourtNaptoN, J.
This was a bill in chancery to compel the specific performance of a verbal contract.
The bill charges that in the year 1823, Hyacinth Lecompte conveyed a lot in St.jjjLouis, on First street, formerly owned by one Periconneau, to Cecile Compare for life, with cross remainders over to her two daughters Catharine and Louise, and her son Hyacinth. This last person died in 1835, a minor, and without leaving issue.
On the 17th February, 1841, Catharine and Louise Compare conveyed to M. P. Leduc, for the use of their mother, Cecile Lecompte, (who had previously to this time married said Hyacinth…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Wooldridge v. ScottSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- Hackett v. WattsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Peters v. McDonoughSupreme Court of Missouri · 1931
- White v. WatkinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
- Renner v. Progressive Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937