From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crown Corporation v. Galanti

Supreme Court of Georgia
Feb 4, 1965
140 S.E.2d 898 (Ga. 1965)

Opinion

22780.

ARGUED JANUARY 12, 1965.

DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 1965. REHEARING DENIED FEBRUARY 18, 1965.

Specific performance. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Tanksley.

John E. Feagin, for plaintiff in error.

Gershon, Ruden Schwartz, David Gershon, contra.


1. This amended petition for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land contains no allegation showing the value of the property involved so as to enable this court to determine whether or not the contract is fair, just and equitable and one which equity, in good conscience, will decree specifically performed; and since it does not, it fails to state a cause of action for specific performance. Banks v. Harden, 220 Ga. 266 ( 138 S.E.2d 320), and the several cases there cited.

2. The petition in this case contains an alternative prayer for damages. It also fails to state a cause of action for this relief. A petition which seeks specific performance of a contract for the sale of land which fails to state a cause of action for that relief cannot be the basis of an action for damages growing out of an alleged breach of such contract. Loewus v. Eskridge Downing, Inc., 175 Ga. 456 (5) ( 165 S.E. 576); Hamilton v. Daniel, 213 Ga. 650 ( 100 S.E.2d 730); and Waters v. Waters, 217 Ga. 557, 559 (2) ( 123 S.E.2d 765).

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

ARGUED JANUARY 12, 1965 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 1965 — REHEARING DENIED FEBRUARY 18, 1965.


Summaries of

Crown Corporation v. Galanti

Supreme Court of Georgia
Feb 4, 1965
140 S.E.2d 898 (Ga. 1965)
Case details for

Crown Corporation v. Galanti

Case Details

Full title:CROWN CORPORATION v. GALANTI et al

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Feb 4, 1965

Citations

140 S.E.2d 898 (Ga. 1965)
140 S.E.2d 898

Citing Cases

Stribling v. Ailion

Loewus v. Eskridge Downing, Inc., 175 Ga. 456 (5) ( 165 S.E. 576); Hamilton v. Daniel, 213 Ga. 650 ( 100…

Moody v. Mendenhall

This court has repeatedly held that in order for a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale…