Thompson v. Arrington
| Decision Date | 02 September 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 17946,17946 |
| Citation | 209 Ga. 343,72 S.E.2d 293 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. ARRINGTON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Robert R. Forrester, Tifton, Ford & Houston, W. C. Smith, Sylvester, for plaintiff in error.
Robert B. Williamson, Sylvester, William H. Riddlespurger, Moultrie, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
Arrington sued Thompson, alleging in brief: that the defendant agreed in writing, on December 12, 1950, to convey to him by warranty deed, free of liens and encumbrances, certain described realty in Worth County, Georgia, upon the payment to him of $11,000 by midnight on January 10, 1951; that $100 was paid when the option was given, and an actual tender of the balance was duly made on January 4, 1951; that the agreed price of $11,000 was the fair, just, and reasonable value of the property involved; that the defendant, for no sufficient legal reason, refused to comply with the terms of his contract; and that a continuing tender of the agreed purchase-price balance was made. The plaintiff attached to his petition a copy of the option, and prayed for a decree of specific performance. The petition was not demurred to. The defendant, by his answer as amended, admitted execution and delivery of the option, payment of $100 thereon, actual tender of the agreed balance during the option period, and did not deny the alleged value of the optioned property; but, further answering the petition, averred that he had prior to his written agreement with the plaintiff, entered into a verbal cropper's contract with one Thomas for the cultivation of the subject land for the year 1951; that the plaintiff, prior to the date of the option, knew of that contract and of its terms, and orally agreed to assume and comply with the defendant's obligations thereunder; that the plaintiff, after taking the option and during the option period, advised him (the defendant) that he would not comply with and carry out his oral contract with Thomas; and that he, for that reason, declined and refused to accept from the plaintiff the tendered balance of the agreed purchase price, and, for the same reason, declined and refused to convey to him the optioned premises. The plaintiff timely moved to strike the answer as amended on the grounds, among others, that it set forth no valid defense; that it sought by parol to add to and vary the terms of a complete and unambiguous written contract; and that it sought by parol to engraft upon a written contract additional terms and obligations. The motion to strike the answer as amended was sustained. The defendant, in due time, filed exceptions pendente lite, upon which error is assigned in the bill of exceptions. On the trial, the plaintiff proved the allegations of his petition by competent evidence, and the court directed a verdict in his favor. A motion for new trial, based only on the usual general grounds, was overruled, and to that judgment the defendant also excepted. Held:
1. Where, as here, a written contract for the sale of land is clear, distinct and definite, fair and just, for an adequate consideration, and capable of being performed, equity will, on application therefor, decree specific performance of it. Studer v. Seyer, 69 Ga. 125, 126; Coleman v. Woodland Hills, Co., 196 Ga. 626, 27 S.E.2d 226; Jenkins v. Evans, 202 Ga. 423, 43 S.E.2d 501; Mangum v. Jones, 205 Ga. 661, 54 S.E.2d 603; Finney v. Blalock, 206 Ga. 655, 58 S.E.2d 429; Ogletree v. Ingram & LeGrand Lumber Co., 207 Ga. 333, 61 S.E.2d 480.
2. There is no merit in the contention that the court erred in striking the defendant's answer as amended. Where parties reduce their agreement to writing, as the parties to this litigation did, all oral negotiations antecedent thereto or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shivers v. Webster
...and shows that a jury could conclude from the evidence that Shivers had notice of Webster's agreement with Walker. Thompson v. Arrington, 209 Ga. 343, 72 S.E.2d 293 (1952), cited by Shivers as controlling authority, is distinguishable. The question in Thompson was whether an antecedent paro......
-
Ryder v. Schreeder
...and parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument. Thompson v. Arrington, 209 Ga. 343(2), 72 S.E.2d 293; Code § 38-501. The defendants also contend that this contract could not be set aside on the grounds asserted by the The con......
-
Dixie Belle Mills, Inc. v. Specialty Mach. Co.
...Security & Brokerage Co., 182 Ga. 480(3), 185 S.E. 807; Thompson v. Riggs, 193 Ga. 632, 634(2), 19 S.E.2d 299; Thompson v. Arrington, 209 Ga. 343(2) 72 S.E.2d 293; Early v. Kent, 215 Ga. 49, 108 S.E.2d The allegations in this amendment to the effect that the defendant's employee Funk had pr......
-
Arrington v. Thompson, s. 18974
...in denying the plaintiff's amended motion for new trial for any reason assigned. This court on September 2, 1952, in Thompson v. Arrington, 209 Ga. 343, 72 S.E.2d 293, affirmed the judgment of the trial court decreeing specific performance of an option to convey the fee-simple title to cert......