Legal Opinion

Redmond v. Sinclair Refining Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided January 12, 1949No. 16449PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Head, Justice.

The demurrers of the defendant contend that the petition sets forth no cause of action, sets forth no equitable grounds entitling the plaintiff to the relief for which it prays, and that the contract is too vague, indefinite, uncertain, and indistinct to support a decree of specific performance.

The option to purchase in the instant case appears to be certain, fair in all its parts, based on an adequate consideration, and capable of being performed. In Chance v. Beall, 20 Ga. 142, the following is held: “Where a contract for the sale of land is in writing — is certain — and fair…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Black v. MaddoxSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
  2. Groover v. BrandonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1945
  3. Walker v. EdmundsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
  4. Turman v. SmarrSupreme Court of Georgia · 1916
  5. Martin v. Oakhurst Development Corp.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1944

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Jones v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1949
  2. Naylor v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1953
  3. Wehunt v. PritchettSupreme Court of Georgia · 1951
  4. Chatham Amusement Co. v. PerrySupreme Court of Georgia · 1960
  5. Irwin v. DaileySupreme Court of Georgia · 1961

14 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