Melton v. Stuart
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.
It is well settled by the authorities that the equitable right to specific performance of a contract is not affected by the provision of mutual penalties for nonperformance. “Where a person has agreed to do a certain act, or to refrain from doing a certain act, and has added a penalty for the purpose of securing a performance, a court of equity will, if tlie contract is otherwise one which calls for its interposition, compel the party to specifically perform, or restrain him from committing the act, as the case may be, notwithstanding the penalty. If the sum stipulated to be paid is really a…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Brashier v. GratzSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
- Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. . StephensNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Blackburn v. McLaughlinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
- Brown v. MungerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Tombigbee Valley R. R. v. Fairford Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1908
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Moss v. CogleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1958
- Eaton v. SadlerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
- Chandler v. BodekerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- George E. Wood Lumber Co. v. MorrisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Pierce v. WatsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1949
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.