Title: Shipp v. Thomas
Citation: 269 P.2d 741, 58 N.M. 189
Docket Number: 5717
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: April 14, 1954

269 P.2d 741 (1954) 58 N.M. 189 SHIPP v. THOMAS. No. 5717. Supreme Court of New Mexico. April 14, 1954. D.A. Calderon and O.O. Askren, Roswell, for appellant. Frazier, Cusack &amp; Snead, Roswell, for appellee. COMPTON, Justice. Appellee instituted this action for the specific performance of an oral contract relating to the transfer of real estate on certain conditions which he alleged had been performed. The trial court made findings of fact which are accepted by the parties as the facts in the case, leaving only the question of law, whether the contract is within the statute of frauds. The findings material to a decision, are: The court then concluded the contract should be specifically enforced. Appellant argues a single error, as follows: Assuming the correctness of the findings as we must, there was such partial performance of the oral agreement by appellee as to warrant its enforcement. It has long been held by this court, the equitable remedy of specific performance is not granted as a matter of course; nevertheless, where the oral agreement has been partly performed and the court is satisfied the circumstances or conditions do not render the enforcement inequitable, courts of equity do not hesitate to give effect to the contract, though not in writing. At 81 C.J.S., Specific Performance, § 52, the rule is stated thusly: For an application of the rule we need go no further than our own cases. Provencio v. Price, 57 N.M. 40, 253 P.2d 582; Schauer v. Schauer, 43 N.M. 209, 89 P.2d 521; Paulos v. Janetakos, 41 N.M. 534, 72 P.2d 1; Pugh v. Phelps, 37 N.M. 126, 19 P.2d 315. Also see 81 C.J.S., Specific Performance, § 59 and 49 Am.Jur. Statute of Frauds, § 421. At Restatement, contract, § 197, the rule is otherwise stated: Oral contracts, partly performed, stand on a parity with contracts in writing insofar as enforcement is concerned; in either instance application for performance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. And in this instance, the court being satisfied that inequity would not result from its enforcement, possession of the premises pursuant to the oral agreement, followed by the making of improvements, and full payment of the consideration, is enough to take the contract out of the statute. The judgment should be affirmed, and It Is So Ordered. McGHEE, C.J., and SADLER, LUJAN and SEYMOUR, JJ., concur.