Leahy v. Richardson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Union Chancery Court; J. Y. Stevens, Chancellor; The written agreement of sale was so indefinite and uncertain as to require parol evidence to explain it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Union Chancery Court; J. Y. Stevens, Chancellor; The written agreement of sale was so indefinite and uncertain as to require parol evidence to explain it. To entitle one to specific performance, the contract must be complete and free from ambiguity. 25 R. C. L., p. 218, sec. 17; 160 S. W. 854. Appellee did not pay or offer to pay the consideration for the lease and was not entitled to maintain suit for specific performance. 184 Pac. 1010; 181 Pac. 964. There was no mutuality of obligation, and appellee was not entitled to specific performance. 25 R. O. L., pp. 232, 233, par. 33…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
This suit was brought April 29, 1921, to enforce the specific performance of a contract resting partly in writing and partly in parol. The written portion is as follow:
“Agreement of Sale.
“This agreement, made and entered into this 19th day of March, 1921, by and between J. F. Robinson, agent, and T. J. Leahy, trustee.
“Witnesseth: That the said T. J. Leahy has this day executed an oil and gas assignment covering the following described lands in Union County, Arkansas, to-wit: Northwest quarter of the northwest quarter, section 21, township 18 south, range 15 west, consisting of forty acres, to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Izard v. Connecticut Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Hollabaugh v. TaylorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Thompson v. DavenportSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920