Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ellis v. Estate of Wooley

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided July 16, 1985No. WD 36087Published

1DissentKennedy, Judge

I respectfully dissent.

The majority opinion holds that in order for specific performance to be available to the purchasers of the promissory note, the remedy of specific performance must have been available under § 473.303, RSMo. Supp.1984, before Mrs. Wooley’s death. Since Mrs. Wooley could not specifically perform at the time of or before her death (because of Mrs. McCabe’s outstanding interest in the note and mortgage), the opinion says, the personal representative could not be called upon to perform in specie even after the defense of impossibility of performance was removed.

The opinion…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Kohlenberg v. American Plumbing Supply Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Priest v. OehlerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1931
  3. Sedmak v. Charlie's Chevrolet, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1981
  4. McCarty v. MellinkoffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  5. State ex rel. Dowd v. TurpinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1979

1 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