Legal Opinion

Coleman v. Woodland Hills Company

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided September 11, 1943No. 14613PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Duckworth, Justice.

1. “Specific performance is not a remedy which either party can demand as a matter of absolute right, and will not in any given case be granted unless strictly equitable and just. Mere inadequacy of price may justify a court in refusing to decree a specific performance of a contract of bargain and sale; so also may any other fact showing the contract to be unfair, or unjust, or against good conscience. And in order to authorize specific performance of a contract, its terms must be clear, distinct, and definite. A petition for specific performance, which fails to allege a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Shropshire v. RaineySupreme Court of Georgia · 1920
  2. Brogdon v. HoganSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
  3. Whitehead v. DillardSupreme Court of Georgia · 1934
  4. Huggins v. MeriweatherSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
  5. Johns v. NixSupreme Court of Georgia · 1943

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Wehunt v. PritchettSupreme Court of Georgia · 1951
  2. Bullard v. BullardSupreme Court of Georgia · 1947
  3. Holliday v. PopeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1949
  4. Mangum v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1949
  5. Savannah Bank & Trust Co. v. HanleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1951

24 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