Court Opinion

ID: 9718328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:21:11.890949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:58.600664
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
It is my view that specific performance should have been granted. I do not quarrel with the general proposition that a contract conveying an interest in land may be specifically enforced only if the property involved is clearly and adequately described. Portnoy v. Brown, 430 Pa. 401, 243 A. 2d 444 (1968); Cheney v. Carver, 370 Pa. 543, 88 A. 2d 746 (1952). However, not all contracts whose ultimate result is the transfer of an interest in land are subject to the full rigors of this principle. “Under the authorities generally, it is clear that a deed is not void which purports to convey, out of a larger tract of land presumably owned by *129the grantor, a stated number of unlocated acres to be selected at the will of the grantee.” 117 A.L.R. 1087; Turner v. Hunt, 131 Tex. 492, 116 S.W.2d 688 (1938).
Both instruments involved in this case contained the following language:
“It was further agreed between these two parties that if the note was not paid in full within five years the borrower (J.A.P.) agrees to transfer to the lender ten acres (10) [7% acres in the second note] of his farm in Jamison, Penna. in one parcel.
“It was further agreed that not more than fifty per cent (50%) of this parcel will be on either Poor House or Dark Hollow Hoad.”
It is my view that the agreements gave the appellant the right to take any portion of the appellees farm which fit the description as to size and location. Since this interpretation of the contract renders the general principle stated above inapplicable, I would reverse the decree and grant specific performance.
Mr. Chief Justice Bell joins in this dissent.