Legal Opinion

Windham v. Honeycutt

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided August 25, 1986No. 0779PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Cureton, Judge:

This appeal involves an award of damages incidental to an order for specific performance of a land sales contract between respondent Stanley Windham and appellant Hazel M. Honeycutt. We affirm as modified.

On August 23, 1979, Honeycutt contracted to sell thirty acres of land to Windham for a total purchase price of $115,000, with a down payment of $60,000. Honeycutt subsequently refused to convey the land, and Windham commenced an action for specific performance. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed an earlier order by the trial court granting specific performance and…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Ellis v. MihelisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Bembridge v. MillerOregon Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Pearce v. Third Ave. Improvement Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1930
  4. Eliason v. WattsUtah Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Bilton v. Best Western Royal Motor LodgeCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1984

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. DOE BY DOE v. Greenville Hosp. SystemCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1994
  2. Two Trees v. Builders Transport, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2006
  3. Shupe v. SettleCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1994
  4. Austin Ex Rel. Estate of Austin v. Conway Hospital, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1987
  5. Goodson v. AMER. BANKERS INS. CO. OF FLA.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1988

19 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