Christenson v. Lo Paro

Ohio Court of Appeals

Christenson v. Lo Paro

6 Ohio Law. Abs. 544

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 7, 1928

DocketNo. 8599

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 544 (Christenson v. Lo Paro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Christenson v. Lo Paro, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 544 (Ohio Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

VICKERY, J.

It would seem that one only would have to state the proposition to see how inequitable such a decision would necessarily be.

The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he seeks in this case for the reason that to use the equity power of the court to enter such a judgment would be so grossly inequitable that it would shock the conscience of the chancellor in any court. The plaintiff not having in his possession or power to deliver the article he promised to deliver, he cannot enforce specific performance, because the record plainly shows, or it is admitted in argument, that this property was sold at Sheriff’s sale and that it is now owned by some one other than the plaintiff.

If-the plaintiff wanted to have this transaction completed he had to be in readiness to tender and be able to perform his part of the contract. Not being able to do so, he is not entitled to the relief sought.

There may be a decree for the defendant.

(Sullivan,' PJ., and Levine, J., concur.)

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

VICKERY, J.

It would seem that one only would have to state the proposition to see how inequitable such a decision would necessarily be.

The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he seeks in this case for the reason that to use the equity power of the court to enter such a judgment would be so grossly inequitable that it would shock the conscience of the chancellor in any court. The plaintiff not having in his possession or power to deliver the article he promised to deliver, he cannot enforce specific performance, because the record plainly shows, or it is admitted in argument, that this property was sold at Sheriff’s sale and that it is now owned by some one other than the plaintiff.

If-the plaintiff wanted to have this transaction completed he had to be in readiness to tender and be able to perform his part of the contract. Not being able to do so, he is not entitled to the relief sought.

There may be a decree for the defendant.

(Sullivan,' PJ., and Levine, J., concur.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Ohio Law. Abs. 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christenson-v-lo-paro-ohioctapp-1928.