Bonner v. Jordan

Supreme Court of Georgia

Bonner v. Jordan

126 S.E.2d 613, 218 Ga. 129, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 452

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJuly 9, 1962

Docket21696

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 126 S.E.2d 613 (Bonner v. Jordan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bonner v. Jordan, 126 S.E.2d 613, 218 Ga. 129, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 452 (Ga. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Justice.

This is a suit brought by the seller of real estate to compel the purchaser to specifically perform the contract of sale. The contract contained the provision: “Purchaser to pay $5,500 down and secure a loan for $10,000 balance. This sale is subject to purchaser’s ability to obtain this loan.” The petition alleged the purchaser could obtain the loan of $10,000 but refused to accept the loan or carry out the contract.

The contract is too indefinite to be the subject of a decree for specific performance for the reason that it does not stipulate upon what terms and at what rate of interest the defendant is to obtain the loan of $10,000. Erwin v. Hardin, 187 Ga. 275 (200 SE 159); Wehunt v. Pritchett, 208 Ga. 441, 444 *130 (67 SE2d 233); Healan v. Healan, 209 Ga. 268 (71 SE2d 537); F & C Investment Co. v. Jones, 210 Ga. 635 (81 SE2d 828); Williams v. Manchester Bldg. Supply Co., 213 Ga. 99, 101 (97 SE2d 129); Duvall v. Cox, 215 Ga. 163, 164 (109 SE2d 593). See, as to the necessity of completeness of a contract to be enforced in a suit for breach of same, Williams v. Gottlieb, 90 Ga. App. 438 (1) (83 SE2d 245), and Scarborough v. Novak, 92 Ga. App. 488 (88 SE2d 800). Hence, it must be held that the trial judge erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.

Argued June 12, 1962 Decided July 9, 1962. Hatcher, Smith, Stubbs •& Rothschild, J. Rudolph Jones, for plaintiff in error. Roberts & Thornton, contra.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Quillian, Justice.

This is a suit brought by the seller of real estate to compel the purchaser to specifically perform the contract of sale. The contract contained the provision: “Purchaser to pay $5,500 down and secure a loan for $10,000 balance. This sale is subject to purchaser’s ability to obtain this loan.” The petition alleged the purchaser could obtain the loan of $10,000 but refused to accept the loan or carry out the contract.

The contract is too indefinite to be the subject of a decree for specific performance for the reason that it does not stipulate upon what terms and at what rate of interest the defendant is to obtain the loan of $10,000. Erwin v. Hardin, 187 Ga. 275 (200 SE 159); Wehunt v. Pritchett, 208 Ga. 441, 444 *130 (67 SE2d 233); Healan v. Healan, 209 Ga. 268 (71 SE2d 537); F & C Investment Co. v. Jones, 210 Ga. 635 (81 SE2d 828); Williams v. Manchester Bldg. Supply Co., 213 Ga. 99, 101 (97 SE2d 129); Duvall v. Cox, 215 Ga. 163, 164 (109 SE2d 593). See, as to the necessity of completeness of a contract to be enforced in a suit for breach of same, Williams v. Gottlieb, 90 Ga. App. 438 (1) (83 SE2d 245), and Scarborough v. Novak, 92 Ga. App. 488 (88 SE2d 800). Hence, it must be held that the trial judge erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.

Argued June 12, 1962 Decided July 9, 1962. Hatcher, Smith, Stubbs •& Rothschild, J. Rudolph Jones, for plaintiff in error. Roberts & Thornton, contra.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 S.E.2d 613, 218 Ga. 129, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonner-v-jordan-ga-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack