Rovelsky v. Scheuer
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Dale. Heard before the Hon. Jeke N. Williams. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. 1. In cases of this kind, above all others, a much stronger case is required to maintain the suit, than to defeat it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Dale. Heard before the Hon. Jeke N. Williams. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. 1. In cases of this kind, above all others, a much stronger case is required to maintain the suit, than to defeat it. The proof must, in eyery essential particular, correspond with the contract stated in the bill, be clear and satisfactory, the contract reasonable and just, before a court of equity will be authorized to decree specific performance; and in no case, will a court decree specific performance of a void contract. Johnston v. Jones, 85 Ala.…
1Opinion of the Court
McCLELLAN, J. —
This bill is,exhibited by B. Scheuer & Brother and Rachel Schloss against Dora Rovelsky et al., for the specific performance of a parol contract to convey land alleged to have been made by the said Dora. The case made by the bill is this : The said Dora owned the land in controversy and was .indebted to B. Scheuer & Bro. in the sum of $861, and to Rachel Schloss in the sum of $1,861. She was engaged in a mercantile business at Ozark which was carried on, managed and controlled by Max Rovelsky in her name, and in respect of it he was her general agent. The debt of B. Scheuer &…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Franklin v. Pollard Mill Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1889
3Cited by4 opinions
- Adams v. ManningUtah Supreme Court · 1915
- Wirtz v. GordonMississippi Supreme Court · 1938
- Eddleman v. CadeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1954
- Penney v. LyleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921