Pridgen v. Saville

Supreme Court of Georgia

Pridgen v. Saville

226 S.E.2d 905, 237 Ga. 49, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1143

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 8, 1976

Docket31078

StatusPublished

This text of 226 S.E.2d 905 (Pridgen v. Saville) 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

Pridgen v. Saville, 226 S.E.2d 905, 237 Ga. 49, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1143 (Ga. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Undercofler, Presiding Justice.

Danny W. Pridgen filed a complaint against L. H. Saville seeking specific performance of a contract to sell land. The complaint was dismissed on motion of the defendant. The exception is to that judgment. Held:

" 'A court of equity will not decree the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land unless there [50]*50is a definite and specific statement of the terms of the contract. . . Its terms must be such that neither party can reasonably misunderstand them. It would be inequitable to carry a contract into effect where the court is left to ascertain the intention of the parties by mere guess or conjecture, because it might be guilty of erroneously decreeing what the parties never intended or contemplated.’ Williams v. Manchester Building Supply Co., 213 Ga. 99, 101 (97 SE2d 129); Harris v. Porter’s Social Club, 215 Ga. 687 (2) (113 SE2d 134).” Austin v. Willis, 229 Ga. 193 (190 SE2d 532) (1972).

Submitted May 5, 1976 Decided June 8, 1976. Julón Murray, for appellant. Jack C. Bell, for appellee.

The contract sought to be enforced in this complaint provided that the purchaser would pay 29% of the price of the surveyed property by August 1 but does not provide how the balance of the purchase price is to be paid.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Undercofler, Presiding Justice.

Danny W. Pridgen filed a complaint against L. H. Saville seeking specific performance of a contract to sell land. The complaint was dismissed on motion of the defendant. The exception is to that judgment. Held:

" 'A court of equity will not decree the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land unless there [50]*50is a definite and specific statement of the terms of the contract. . . Its terms must be such that neither party can reasonably misunderstand them. It would be inequitable to carry a contract into effect where the court is left to ascertain the intention of the parties by mere guess or conjecture, because it might be guilty of erroneously decreeing what the parties never intended or contemplated.’ Williams v. Manchester Building Supply Co., 213 Ga. 99, 101 (97 SE2d 129); Harris v. Porter’s Social Club, 215 Ga. 687 (2) (113 SE2d 134).” Austin v. Willis, 229 Ga. 193 (190 SE2d 532) (1972).

Submitted May 5, 1976 Decided June 8, 1976. Julón Murray, for appellant. Jack C. Bell, for appellee.

The contract sought to be enforced in this complaint provided that the purchaser would pay 29% of the price of the surveyed property by August 1 but does not provide how the balance of the purchase price is to be paid.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 S.E.2d 905, 237 Ga. 49, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pridgen-v-saville-ga-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack