Butler v. Schilletter
| Decision Date | 14 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 17263,17263 |
| Citation | 96 S.E.2d 661,230 S.C. 552 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Charles P. BUTLER, Respondent, v. A. E. SCHILLETTER and Grace Schilletter, Appellants. |
Julien D. Wyatt, Felix L. Finley, Jr., John T. Gentry, Pickens, for appellant.
W. G. Acker, Pickens, for respondent.
The well considered order of the Circuit Court, which will be reported, is adopted as the opinion of this Court with the following additions and modifications:
The contract sought to be enforced is clear and unambiguous. No claim is made in the answer of fraud, accident or mutual mistake. No question of reformation was raised in the Court below. Clearly parol evidence as to any contemporaneous agreement regarding restrictions would be incompetent. It is contended that appellant Grace Schilletter not being a party to the contract, is free to offer testimony varying or contradicting it. But it is not sought to impose any contractual liability upon her. She was made a party to this action solely because of her dower interest.
Attention is called to the principle that specific performance is not a matter of absolute right but rests in the sound discretion of the court, which it is claimed cannot be properly exercised until a reference is had and all the attendant circumstances developed. But there are no equities set out in the answer warranting the denial of the relief sought. No showing whatsoever is made why appellant A. E. Schilletter, an experienced real estate man, should not carry out his contract. A summary order of specific performance is entirely proper.
It is stated that a conveyance of this lot to respondent without restrictions would be unjust and cause great damage to the residential lot owners 'whom appellants are under legal and moral duty to protect by the restrictions.' But these lot owners are not parties to this action and nothing said herein shall be construed as affecting any rights they may have.
We shall now consider the particulars in which we think the order of the Circuit Judge must be modified.
It is claimed that after overruling the demurrer of appellant Grace Schilletter, the Court erred in not permitting her to answer. This omission may have been due to an inadvertence. However, respondent argues that she should be denied this privilege as she was made a party solely for the purpose of determining her dower rights and suggests that without answering she could 'appear at the reference if she so desires and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bregman v. Meehan, V-E
...47 A.D.2d 378, 366 N.Y.S.2d 512, rev'd on other grounds 40 N.Y.2d 475, 387 N.Y.S.2d 79, 354 N.E.2d 818 (1976); Butler v. Schilletter, 230 S.C. 552, 96 S.E.2d 661 (1957); see Annot: 11 A.L.R.4th 891 (1982); Special or Consequential Damages Recoverable on Account of Delay in Delivering Posses......
-
Margolis v. Telech, 17843
...support the foregoing allegations would be inadmissible, the portion of the answer in question was properly stricken. Butler v. Schilletter, 230 S.C. 552, 96 S.E.2d 661. The last question for determination concerns the contention by the defendant that the trial judge erred in the admission ......
-
Amick v. Hagler
...specific performance of a contract to sell real property is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Butler v. Schilletter, 230 S.C. 552, 561, 96 S.E.2d 661, 665 (1957). The decision cannot be arbitrary and must be exercised in accordance with the rules and practices of equity and wi......
-
Cohen v. Lovitz
...Crahane v. Swan, 212 Or. 143, 318 P.2d 942; in Virginia, Nagle v. Newton, 22 Gratt. 814, 821; in South Carolina, Butler v. Schilletter, 230 S.C. 552, 96 S.E. 2d 661; and in Mississippi, McVay v. Castanera, 156 Miss. 785, 126 So. 832, as well as in some other Illinois seems to be the lone di......