Legal Opinion

Carroll v. Jones

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided January 10, 1950No. 16916PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Head, Justice.

The plaintiff in error contends that the contract in this case is lacking in definiteness and certainty as to the consideration to be paid, and that specific performance of the contract can not, therefore, be decreed. Counsel for the plaintiff in error has cited decisions by this court and from foreign jurisdictions which hold that, where a contract is lacking in clearness and certainty as to any of its essential parts, specific performance will be denied. It is a well-established general principle of law that, in order for a court to decree specific performance of a contract,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Shropshire v. RaineySupreme Court of Georgia · 1920
  2. Brogdon v. HoganSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
  3. Muller v. CooperSupreme Court of Georgia · 1928
  4. Huggins v. MeriweatherSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
  5. Sturdivant v. WalkerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1947

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Low v. Honolulu Rapid Transit Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Wiley v. Tom Howell & Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1980
  3. Nickelson v. OwenbySupreme Court of Georgia · 1951
  4. Miller v. McCulloughSupreme Court of Georgia · 1976
  5. Miller v. McCulloughSupreme Court of Georgia · 1976

2 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