Case Name: SUMNER v. BANKHEAD
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1922-04-18
Citations: 119 S.C. 78
Docket Number: 10869
Parties: SUMNER v. BANKHEAD.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Gary (see opinion) and Mr. Justice Watts concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 119
Pages: 78–97

Head Matter:
10869
SUMNER v. BANKHEAD.
(111 S. E. 891)
1. Specific Performance — Grant of Specific Performance Is Addressed to Court’s Discretion, and Refusal Is Not Error Where the Contract Is Speculative. — Specific performance is addressed to the sound discretion of a court of equity, and where the Judge found as a matter of fact that the contract was speculative, and such finding is abundantly sustained by the evidence, showing that the seller did not own the land at the time he made the contract to Sell, and that he made a contract with his agent whose business it was to negotiate sales to divide the forfeiture money provided by the contract, his decision must be affirmed.
2. Specific Performance — Where Contract Provided Initial Payment as Measure of Damages for Breach, It Was Proper to Give no Damages in Action for Specific Performance.— In an action for specific performance, the Court did not err in refusing damages for breach of the contract, where the contract itself provided the measure of damages in the forfeiture of the initial payment which has 'been paid.
Note: The question of inference as to character of transaction arising from fact that it was on margin is discussed in a note in 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 174.
Before Moore, J., York. July,' 1921.
Affirmed.
Action by R. E. Sumner against J. W. Bankhead. From judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals.
Messrs. Wilson & Wilson and Marion & Marion, for appellant,
cite: Right of vendor to enforce specific performance: Rich. Eq. Cas. 235; 16 S. C. 89; 21 S. C. 121; 21 S. C. 205; 48 S. C. 176; 92 S. C. 352; 10 S. C. 221; 107 S. C. 465; 11 Rich. 54; 12 Rich. 343; 53 S. C. 315. Right rests in judicial discretion: 53 S. C. 572. Should he decreed unless inequitable or unjust: 100 S. C. 632; 90 S. E. 64; 62 S. E. 417. Contract not speculative as 114 S. C- 245; 36 Cyc. 574. To relieve vendee from speculative bargain would defeat purpose of the Court: 1 Rich. Eq. 404 ; 57 S. C. 393. Bven if performance denied, complaint should not have been dismissed: 100! S. C. 306; 57 S. C. 279.
Messrs. Gaston & Hamilton, for respondent,
cite: Contract speculative: 114 S. C. 245; and not such a one as the Courts will enforce: 105 S. C. 176; 84 S. C. 265; 5 Rich. Eq. 571; 1 Hill Eq. 51. Plaintiff could not ■ combine action for specific performance and damages: 107 S. C. 469; 112 S. C. 255; 91 S. C. 288.
April 18, 1922.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
This is an action for specific performance, based upon the following contract:
"Sales Contract of Real Estate
"Ross E. Roach, Broker
"Rock Hill, S. C., Aug. 23, 1920.
"$19,425, or $105 per acr'e.
"Articles of agreement between Ross F. Roach for R. E. Sumner of Rock Hill, S. C., and J. W. Bankhead of Eowryville, S. C.:
"Ross F. Roach agrees to sell and J. W. Bankhead agrees to buy the following described property: One 185 acre (more or less, known as the John Roddey Lock view, about 2% miles> east of Rock Hill, four tenant houses, one barn, for the sum of nineteen thousand, four hundred and twenty-five dollars for sound and unincumbered titles for one thousand nine hundred forty-two dollars and fifty cents ($1,942.50) dollars of purchase price is acknowledged paid to bind the obligation until sound and unincumbered titles can be furnished by the owner, by. or before January 2, 1921, when the remainder is to be paid as follows: Cash.
"Should any defect appear in the titles that cannot be corrected the amount paid is to be promptly refunded to the buyer by Ross F. Roach, Broker. The buyer is to have the privilege of examining the titles before completing payment. Taxes are to be paid by the owner up to January' 2, 1921. It is understood by all parties interested that Ross F. Roach is to be responsible only for the amount in his hands, but is to use his best efforts to see that the contract is fulfilled by both buyer and seller. The amount paid to bind the obligation is to be forfeited, provided the buyer fails to comply. Said amount of forfeit is to be equally divided between the owner of the property and the broker.
"Witnesses:
"C. A. Reese, for..R. F. Roach, Broker.
"E. S. Kirk, for.J. W. Bankhead, Buyer.
"Arnold P. White, for.R. E. Sumner, Broker."
The respondent, the purchaser, refused to comply. The seller at the time of the making of the contract did not own the land, but had himself only a contract to purchase.
The case was tried before Judge Ernest Moore, who found that the contract was speculative, and under the case of Schmid v. Whitten, 114 S. C. 245, 103 S. E. 553, refused to require specific performance.
Specific performance is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court of equity. Judge Moore found as a matter of fact from the evidence that the con- tract was speculative. In so finding he is abundantly sustained bjr the evidence. The seller did not own the land at the time he made the contract to sell, and before he took title, or the time had arrived at which he could get the title, he. made a contract of resale. The appellant may have changed his mind, or his circumstances may have changed. If the appellant contracted to purchase for his own use, it would have been easy to have explained his change of purpose. He offered no explanation, but, on the contrary, he made a contract of sale in which he and his agent, whose business it was to negotiate sales of land, should divide share and share alike the $1,942.50, the forfeiture provided by the contract sued upon. The contract itself shows its speculative nature. It is true the case of Schmid v Whitten, supra, was decided by a divided Court, but it does not lose its binding authority for that reason. The first ground of exception cannot be sustained.
II. The only other question is: Did his Honor err in not giving damages for the breach of the contract ?
There was no error here. The contract itself provided the measure of damages, the forfeiture of the initial payment, and that has been paid.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice Gary (see opinion) and Mr. Justice Watts concur.
Mr. Justice Cothran (see opinion) dissents.