Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1922

Jolly v. Martin

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided July 25, 1922 · Phaser

113 S.E. 128; 120 S.C. 317; 1922 S.C. LEXIS 129 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Mr. Leon L. Rice , for appellant, cites: Liquidated damages: 11 Rich. Eq., 225. Vendee may refuse to comply until encumbrances are removed: 57 S.C. 131 ; 25 R.C.L. 277. Speculative contracts: 114 S.C. 245 . Equity will not intervene if there is remedy at law: 25 R.C.L., 270. Specific performance in discretion of Court: 25 R.C.L. 270. Contract lacks mutuality: 68 S.C. 440 . Performance will not be decreed where liquidated damages have been provided for its breach: 94 S.C. 188 ; 67 S.C. 462 ; 190 Ill., 629 ; 124 N.E., 237 ; 184 S.W. 244 ; 55 Am. Rep. 871; 53 N.E. 576; 28 R.A., 215; 75 N.E., 1049; 9 S.C. 374 ; 82 S.C. 297 ; 11 Rich. L. 554. Messrs. Sullivan Cooley for respondent cite: Equity may decree performance even where there is remedy at law: 107 S.C. 465 ; 25 R.C.L., 271. Seller is not compelled to accept liquidated damages in lieu of performance by the buyer: 27 U.S. 323 ; 2 L.R.A. (N.S.), 210; 47 Pac., 556; 70 N.Y.S., 1096 ; 80 N.W., 458; 87 N.Y., 400 ; 11 Rich. Eq., 225; 130 Iowa, 498 ; 8 Ann. Cas., 357; 95 S.C. 184 . Decrease in market value does not destroy right to performance: 100 S.E. 541; 37 S.E., 141 . Seller need not remove encumbrances where buyer has refused to comply: 111 S.C. 49 .

Opinion of the Court

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.