Brown v. Mitchell, 25027

• Decision Date: 06 February 1969
• Docket Number: No. 25027,25027
• Citation: Brown v. Mitchell, 166 S.E.2d 571, 225 Ga. 115 (Ga. 1969)
• Parties: O. H. BROWN v. Raymond C. MITCHELL et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 571

166 S.E.2d 571

225 Ga. 115

O. H. BROWN v. Raymond C. MITCHELL et al.

No. 25027.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 6, 1969.

Syllabus by the Court

The description of the land in the sales contract was insufficient to authorize specific performance.

Joseph L. abraham, Atlanta, for appellant.

James R. Dollar, Jr., Douglasville, for appellees.

GRICE, Justice.

This appeal is from the denial of a vendor's motion to dismiss the purchasers' complaint which sought specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The complaint, filed in the Superior Court of Douglas County by Raymond C. Mitchell and William M. Greenwood, against O. H. Brown, alleged insofar as essential here the following.

The parties entered into an agreement, copy attached, for the sale of land. Thereafter, the purchasers advised the vendor that they were ready to close the sale in accordance with the contract, but the vendor advised the purchasers that he would not convey the land described and would not comply with the contract. The contract is in writing, signed by all the parties, certain and fair, for adequate consideration, and capable of being performed. The land involved is so situated as to be impossible to duplicate, and damages recoverable at law would not be adequate compensation for the nonperformance of the contract by the vendor. No tender is required in view of the vendor's stated refusal to convey or comply with the contract. The purchasers offer to pay the purchase price and to execute such documents as may be necessary to comply with the terms of the contract. Prayers included that the vendor be required to specifically perform the contract, and other relief not necessary to recite.

The motion to dismiss, insofar as relevant here, asserted that the complaint failed to state a claim against the vendor upon which relief could be granted.

The appeal is from the denial of this motion, which the trial judge certified for immediate review.

In support of his motion to dismiss, the vendor contends that the complaint shows that the contract is too indefinite for enforcement in several stated particulars, that it fails to allege a tender or excuse thereof, and that it also shows that the contract is unenforceable as unfair, unjust, and against good conscience.

Under our view of the case, it is necessary only to deal with the enumeration of error which urges that the description of the land is too indefinite for enforcement of the contract.

The...