¶1 April 27, 1911. The opinion of the Court was delivered by
The decree of the Circuit Court herewith reported, is affirmed for the reasons therein stated.
Download
Copy
Embed on your site
iframe Markdown Preview card Button Hover to preview · click to copy the code
Case posture Posture Before SHIPP, J., Florence, June, 1910. Affirmed.Action by C.P. Johnson against S.P. Lawrence. Defendant appeals from the following decree:
"Some time in the latter part of the year 1909, the plaintiff, C.P. Johnson, approached one Curtis Matthews, who was engaged in business at Elim, South Carolina, conducting a mercantile business and owning a stock of merchandise which was contained in a store building located on the Lynch place, then in possession of the defendant, S.P. Lawrence, for the purpose of negotiating the purchase of this stock of merchandise and mercantile business from Matthews. Johnson finally agreed to pay Matthews full value for the stock of merchandise, provided he could get possession of the Lynch place, then in possession of Lawrence and upon which the store building was located. He accordingly approached Lawrence, who agreed to turn over to him this Lynch or Bigham place if he should purchase the stock of goods from Matthews, this agreement being as follows:
"`Effingham, S.C. December 28, 1909.
"`This is to certify that I, S.P. Lawrence, do agree to deliver to C.P. Johnson the premises now occupied by me, known as the Bigham or Lynch place, which is the place at which I now reside, situated at Elim, S.C. on or before January 15, 1910.
It is further agreed that I am not to move unless said C.P. Johnson do buy and come in possession of the stock of merchandise in the store now occupied by C. Matthews by this date, as mentioned above, January 15, 1910.
And it is further agreed that the said premises shall not be subrented to any one else, but shall be occupied by the said C.P. Johnson, otherwise this contract is void.
S.P. LAWRENCE, Signed in the presence of C.P. JOHNSON. M.C. COLLINS.'
"In accordance with his contract, Johnson purchased the stock of merchandise and the mercantile business from Matthews and paid him full value therefor, but when he demanded of the defendant possession of the tract of land in question the defendant refused to turn the same over to him, whereupon he brought this action for a decree of specific performance. The sole defense set up is that the agreement cannot be specifically performed because there was no consideration moving to Lawrence.
"After full examination of the testimony, I am satisfied that it conclusively shows that Johnson paid full value for the stock of goods; that he would not have purchased the stock of goods for full value if Lawrence had not agreed to deliver to him this Lynch or Bigham place; that at that time Lawrence had been renting this place for several years, from year to year, and that his lease was about to expire, and that as he was contemplating moving from the community, it was the intention that Johnson should come in and take his place as the tenant of the premises, and, although Johnson has fully performed his agreement, Lawrence has utterly failed to carry his out.
"The law is well settled that a consideration to support an agreement need not of necessity be a pecuniary one nor even a beneficial one to the person promising. If it be a loss, or even an inconvenience to the promisee, it is enough. Corbett v. Cochran , 3 Hill 41; Violet v. Patton , 5 Cranch
142 ( 3 L.Ed. 61 ); Hamer v. Sidway , 12 L.R.A. 463; Talbott v. Stemmons , 5 L.R.A. 856; 9 Cyc. 311-316.
"Under this principle I hold that the contract is supported by a consideration, and that the plaintiff, having performed his part, is entitled to specific performance.
"It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the defendant forthwith deliver to plaintiff possession of the Lynch or Bigham place, mentioned in the contract, a description of which is as follows: * * *." Source: CourtListener
