Skelly Oil Co. v. Ashmore case brief summary
365 S.W.2d 582 (1963)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff sued defendants for specific performance of a contract to sell a parcel of property and for an abatement in the purchase price in an amount representing the proceeds received by defendants under an insurance policy on a building on the property. The building was destroyed by fire in the interim between the execution of the contract of sale and the time for closing of the sale by the exchange of consideration for the deed to the property.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The trial court entered judgment for plaintiff, decreed specific performance, and applied the insurance proceeds on the purchase price.
DISCUSSION
The supreme court affirmed, holding specific enforcement of the contract as well as abatement in the purchase price was not inequitable to defendants because they would received their full bargain, while plaintiff would not.
CONCLUSION
The judgment was affirmed.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
365 S.W.2d 582 (1963)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendants appealed from a judgment of
the Circuit Court of Jasper County (Missouri) entered in favor of
plaintiff in an action for specific performance of a contract for the
sale of land and for an abatement of the purchase price.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff sued defendants for specific performance of a contract to sell a parcel of property and for an abatement in the purchase price in an amount representing the proceeds received by defendants under an insurance policy on a building on the property. The building was destroyed by fire in the interim between the execution of the contract of sale and the time for closing of the sale by the exchange of consideration for the deed to the property.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The trial court entered judgment for plaintiff, decreed specific performance, and applied the insurance proceeds on the purchase price.
DISCUSSION
The supreme court affirmed, holding specific enforcement of the contract as well as abatement in the purchase price was not inequitable to defendants because they would received their full bargain, while plaintiff would not.
CONCLUSION
The judgment was affirmed.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment