Opinion
21696.
ARGUED JUNE 12, 1962.
DECIDED JULY 9, 1962.
Specific performance. Muscogee Superior Court. Before Judge Davis.
Hatcher, Smith, Stubbs Rothschild, J. Rudolph Jones, for plaintiff in error.
Roberts Thornton, contra.
This is a suit brought by the seller of real estate to compel the purchaser to specifically perform the contract of sale. The contract contained the provision: "Purchaser to pay $5,500 down and secure a loan for $10,000 balance. This sale is subject to purchaser's ability to obtain this loan." The petition alleged the purchaser could obtain the loan of $10,000 but refused to accept the loan or carry out the contract.
The contract is too indefinite to be the subject of a decree for specific performance for the reason that it does not stipulate upon what terms and at what rate of interest the defendant is to obtain the loan of $10,000. Erwin v. Hardin, 187 Ga. 275 ( 200 S.E. 159); Wehunt v. Pritchett, 208 Ga. 441, 444 ( 67 S.E.2d 233); Healan v. Healan, 209 Ga. 268 ( 71 S.E.2d 537); F C Investment Co. v. Jones, 210 Ga. 635 ( 81 S.E.2d 828); Williams v. Manchester Bldg. Supply Co., 213 Ga. 99, 101 ( 97 S.E.2d 129); Duvall v. Cox, 215 Ga. 163, 164 ( 109 S.E.2d 593). See, as to the necessity of completeness of a contract to be enforced in a suit for breach of same, Williams v. Gottlieb, 90 Ga. App. 438 (1) ( 83 S.E.2d 245), and Scarborough v. Novak, 92 Ga. App. 488 ( 88 S.E.2d 800). Hence, it must be held that the trial judge erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.
Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.