Court Opinion

ID: 9744497
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:04:44.994103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:49.700210
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
In Migatz v. Stieglitz, 166 Ind. 361, 364, 77 N.E. 400, 401 (Ind.1906) the court held:
“The equitable doctrine is that the enforcement of contracts must be mutual, and, the vendee being entitled to specific performance, his vendor must likewise be permitted in equity to compel the acceptance of his deed and the payment of the stipulated consideration. This remedy is available, although the vendor may have an action at law for the purchase money.”
Under the circumstances of this case I fully concur that Marshall was not entitled to the equitable remedy of specific performance. I further agree, notwithstanding the statement in Migatz, that Marshall is not entitled to recover the monetary award for incidental damages as distinguished from an arguable right of recovery of the agreed purchase price in an “action at law.”