Jolly v. Martin

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Jolly v. Martin

113 S.E. 128, 120 S.C. 317, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 129

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 25, 1922

Docket10972

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 113 S.E. 128 (Jolly v. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jolly v. Martin, 113 S.E. 128, 120 S.C. 317, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 129 (S.C. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Phaser.

This is an action for specific performance. A full statement of the facts and a sufficient statement of the law will be found in the opinion of Judge Moore from whose decree this appeal is taken. The record contains no statement of any evidence that shows a mistake' in findings of fact. The granting or withholding of. a *328 •judgment for specific performance is within the discretion of the Court of Equity, and the record shows that his Honor wisely exercised his discretion. There was no speculation, inadequacy in price, or anything else, to indicate that it is inequitable to require specific performance. This case gave the seller the option to treat the initial payment as liquidated damages. The seller has exercised his option not to so treat it. In this and in other respects, this case is not like Sumner v. Bankhead (S. C.), 111 S. E., 892. The decree appealed from fully answers all the questions raised.

Let the decree of Judge Moore be reported, and it stands affirmed.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Phaser.

This is an action for specific performance. A full statement of the facts and a sufficient statement of the law will be found in the opinion of Judge Moore from whose decree this appeal is taken. The record contains no statement of any evidence that shows a mistake' in findings of fact. The granting or withholding of. a *328 •judgment for specific performance is within the discretion of the Court of Equity, and the record shows that his Honor wisely exercised his discretion. There was no speculation, inadequacy in price, or anything else, to indicate that it is inequitable to require specific performance. This case gave the seller the option to treat the initial payment as liquidated damages. The seller has exercised his option not to so treat it. In this and in other respects, this case is not like Sumner v. Bankhead (S. C.), 111 S. E., 892. The decree appealed from fully answers all the questions raised.

Let the decree of Judge Moore be reported, and it stands affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 S.E. 128, 120 S.C. 317, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jolly-v-martin-sc-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack