Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1926

Harrell v. Smith

Harrell v. Smith
Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided June 4, 1926 · Bulase, Chill, Gary, Messrs, Watts, Cothran, Stabler
136 S.E. 559; 138 S.C. 368; 1926 S.C. LEXIS 229 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. Wilcox Hardee , for appellants, cite: Validity of contract to sell property not then owned by vendor: 209 F., 291. In action for breach of contract to purchase, seller must prove readiness and willingness to comply: 296 F., 233; 279 F., 72; 83 F., 824. Vendor need not make tender where vendee gives notice he will not comply: 291 F., 435. Rescission of contract not warranted on mere belief that opposite party will breach his contract: 125 Tenn., 595 ; Ann. Cas., 1913 — C, 376. Equity will not divest an estate for breach of condition subsequent where vendee in possession: 122 Miss., 190 ; 13 A.L.R., 560. Messrs. J.M. Lynch and W. Marshall Bridges , for respondent, cite: Vendor in contract to sell real estate, having received part payment, in order to establish his right to retain it must show readiness and willingness to comply: 99 S.C. 83 ; 6 Rich. Eq., 324; 27 R.C.L., 626; 39 Cyc., 1371. Defects in negotiable paper in hands of holder binding on transferee with knowledge: 3 R.C.L., 1065; 2 Pomeroy Eq. Jur., 3rd Ed., Sec. 603.

Harrell v. Smith

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Bulase.

After a careful examination of the record in this cause, we are convinced that the decree of his Honor, Judge S. W. G. Shipp, accords with equity and justice, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Mr. Chill Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices Watts, Cothran and Stabler concur.

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