Henley v. Engler
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sit. Francis 'Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. J. D. Henley instituted this 'action in the ¡chancery court against Mary E. Engler, Siam Engler and the Bank’ of Brinkley to obtain ¡specific performance of a contract for the sale of .land. 'The facts are as. follows: The plaintiff Henley made a verbal contract with Sam ¡and Mary Engler to purchase from them 160 acres of land in St. Francis County 'and agreed to pay therefor…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sit. Francis 'Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. J. D. Henley instituted this 'action in the ¡chancery court against Mary E. Engler, Siam Engler and the Bank’ of Brinkley to obtain ¡specific performance of a contract for the sale of .land. 'The facts are as. follows: The plaintiff Henley made a verbal contract with Sam ¡and Mary Engler to purchase from them 160 acres of land in St. Francis County 'and agreed to pay therefor $2,100. He was to pay $150 in cash and to. give four notes of $500 each for the balance. Pursuant to the agreement, Sam-.and…
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts). Professor Pomeroy, in discussing the question of specific performance, ■says that the doctrine is fundamental that either of the parties seeking specific performance against the other must show as a condition precedent to his obtaining the remedy that he has ¡done or off ered to do, or is then ready and willing to do, all the essential and material acts required of him by the agreement at the time of commencing suit. Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, vol. 6, par. 805.
In paragraph 809, following, he .says that where the stipulations are mutual 'and dependent —…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Fox v. HuttonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
- Lacey v. BennettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1946