Holltorf v. Walker, (1929)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 7
Judges: BUFORD, J. —
Attorneys: Gibson Cutts for Appellant;
O. P. Hilburn and S. S. Sandford, for Appellee.
Filed: Apr. 09, 1929
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This was a suit by the proposed vendee against the proposed vendor for the specific performance of a written contract to sell real estate. The contract relied upon was as follows: *Page 509 I, William Holltorf, widower, do hereby acknowledge the receipt from Howard Walker, of the sum of $50.00 as earnest money to apply upon the purchase of the following property situated in Hillsborough County, Florida, and described as follows: The N.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 of Section 36, Township 29 South Range
Summary: This was a suit by the proposed vendee against the proposed vendor for the specific performance of a written contract to sell real estate. The contract relied upon was as follows: *Page 509 I, William Holltorf, widower, do hereby acknowledge the receipt from Howard Walker, of the sum of $50.00 as earnest money to apply upon the purchase of the following property situated in Hillsborough County, Florida, and described as follows: The N.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 of Section 36, Township 29 South Range ..
More
I think this case falls within the operation of the rule that where a contract stipulates for one of two things in the alternative, one of which involves the mere payment or retention of a certain sum of money, equity will not interfere to decree a specific performance of the first alternative, but will leave the aggrieved party to his legal remedy of recovering the money specified in the second alternative. The reason for the rule is that, as the parties have specifically agreed upon the damages for a breach of the contract, equity will leave them to their legal remedies, which by their own contract they have made adequate. See Pomeroy's Specific Performance (3rd Ed.) Sec. 50, and cases cited.
Source: CourtListener
