Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1926

Wyman v. Spigner

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided January 25, 1926 · Cothran, Messrs, Watts, Marion, Purdy, Ci-Iiee, Gary

131 S.E. 590; 133 S.C. 320; 1926 S.C. LEXIS 111 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. Jas. S. Verner and W.D. Dickey , for appellant, cite: Memorandum of contract required to be in writing incomplete: 48 S.C. 396 ; 36 S.C. 544 ; 33 S.C. 367 ; 27 S.C. 348 . When specific performance proper: 127 S.C. 225 ; 109 S.C. 255 ; 101 S.C. 170 ; 77 S.C. 511 . Case distinguished: 116 S.C. 97 . Demurrer proper where complaint shows contract fails to comply with Statute of Frauds: 119 S.C. 171 ; 79 S.C. 160 ; 57 S.C. 147 . Messrs. W. Anderson Clarkson and Melton Belser , for appellants, cite: Demurrer improper where complaint shows contract fails to comply with Statute of Frauds: 57 S.C. 267 ; 48 S.C. 496 ; 5 S.C. 87 ; McM. Eq., 311; 26 R.C.L., 747. Memorandum of contract for sale of land required: 10 Rich. Eq., 447; 1 McC. L., 424; McM. Eq., 311; 2 N. McC., 207; 1 N. McC., 563; 2 Bail 56; Jones on Evidence, Sec. 537. Extrinsic evidence proper to explain memorandum: 2 Bail. L., 56; 25 R.C.L., 665. Memorandum sufficient if gross consideration stated: 5 S.C. 225 ; 2 N. McC., 396; 99 S.E., 81; 96 S.C. 935 ; 144 Ky., 369 ; 36 L.R.A. (N.S.), 154; 104 S.E., 658 , 20 A.L.R., 357. What memorandum must contain: 116 S.C. 97 ; 57 S.C. 267 ; 57 S.C. 131 ; 48 S.C. 496 , McM. Eq., 312; 1 McC., 424; 96 S.E., 935; 20 A.L.R., 357. Contract to be given reasonable interpretation: 124 S.C. 280 ; 170 N.C. 315 ; 241 U.S. 387 ; 60 L.Ed., 1058 ; 6 R. C.L., 839. Parol evidence proper to explain consideration of written contract: 26 S.C. 312 ; 1 Bail. Ch., 138; Jones on Evidence, Secs. 430 and 468-470. Specific performance proper remedy: 126 S.C. 294 ; 117 S.C. 480 ; 116 S.C. 97 ; Rich. Eq., 235.

Opinion of the Court

*324 The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

This is an action for the specific performance of a contract for the sale and purchase of certain real estate in the City of Columbia which is set out in the complaint. The complaint will be incorporated in the report of the case.

The defendant demurred to the complaint upon grounds which appear in the written demurrer. It also will be incorporated in the report of the case.

• We think that the contract was reasonably clear in stating the terms of the contract, in substance, to be that the defendant was to buy the property described at $9,200. He was to pay for it with (a) a 1924 model Reo sedan automobile, valued at $2,000; (b) cash $4,500; and (c) the balance, $2,700, to be payable in installments of $500 every six months thereafter (except the sixth which would be $200), secured by a second mortgage upon the property, with interest at 7 per cent. Doubtless the first mortgage referred to impliedly, was intended to refer to a mortgage to be given by the purchaser in order to raise the cash payment.

The judgment of this Court is that the order appealed from be affirmed.

Messrs. Watts and Marion and Mr. Acting Associate Justice Purdy concur. Mr. Ci-iiEE Justice Gary did not participate.

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