Legal Opinion

Comstock Mfg. Co. v. Schiffmann

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 3, 1925PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeown, J.

The general rules of law relating to the remedy by specific performance of a contract are familiar. However, each case that comes before us is surrounded by a different set of facts. This case must be governed by its own facts and circumstances, and unless the evidence discloses a situation where good conscience will naturally require the enforcement of the contract, relief by decreeing specific performance will not be awarded: Winnie v. Winnie, 166 N. Y. 263 (59 N. E. 832, 82 Am. St. Rep. 647).

The plaintiff declares for specific performance of its contract with defendants. Defendants resist…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Winne v. . WinneNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
  2. Epplett v. Empire Inv. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Smith v. LewisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1857
  4. Anderson v. Wallowa National BankOregon Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Knott v. James B.Oregon Supreme Court · 1874

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Fresk v. KraemerOregon Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Bembridge v. MillerOregon Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Lowe v. HarmonOregon Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Howard v. ThomasOregon Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Johnson v. FeskensOregon Supreme Court · 1934

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API