{
  "id": 6137150,
  "name": "Billy Ray SHELTON and Sarah Shelton v. Hugh KELLER, Hugh Keller III and Patsy Keller",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shelton v. Keller",
  "decision_date": "1988-04-20",
  "docket_number": "CA 87-378",
  "first_page": "68",
  "last_page": "69",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 Ark. App. 68"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "748 S.W.2d 153"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "3 Ark. App. 286",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6715741
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/3/0286-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 Ark. 746",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8723777
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1939,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/197/0746-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 179,
    "char_count": 1977,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.894,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.04405216436393e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3742432473862376
    },
    "sha256": "444abde7c40f31194d407adcd3cf9951775ba55299d749af414c2675d405beeb",
    "simhash": "1:328eb703a76ddf18",
    "word_count": 332
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:52:21.510151+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Corbin, C.J., and Cracraft, J., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Billy Ray SHELTON and Sarah Shelton v. Hugh KELLER, Hugh Keller III and Patsy Keller"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "John E. Jennings, Judge.\nThis was a suit for specific performance of a land sale contract, in which appellants agreed to buy from the appellees 295 acres of land in Lonoke County. After a hearing the trial court found that the contract was valid and enforceable and that the appellees breached it. The court declined to award specific performance, however, because the appellants failed to prove that the lands were \u201cunique.\u201d We agree with the appellants\u2019 argument that, under the law, such proof is not required and that the court erred in refusing to grant specific performance.\nIt is generally true that in order to obtain a decree of specific performance of a contract for the sale of personal property, it must be shown that the property is \u201cunique.\u201d Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 85-2-716 (Add. 1961); 81 C.J.S. Specific Performance \u00a7 82 (1977). This rule has no application to real property because the law regards land as unique. See Dickinson v. McKenzie, 197 Ark. 746, 126 S.W.2d 95 (1939); D. Dobbs, Handbook on the Law of Remedies, \u00a7 12.10 (1973); 81 C.J.S. Specific Performance \u00a7 76 (1977).\nAppellees correctly point out that chancery has some latitude of discretion in granting or withholding specific performance depending on the equities of the particular case. See Langston v. Langston, 3 Ark. App. 286, 625 S.W.2d 554 (1981). But in the case at bar the court did not decline to grant specific performance because of the equities. The court\u2019s judgment was based upon a failure of proof, when such proof is not required by the law.\nThe case is remanded to the chancellor with directions to enter a decree of specific performance.\nReversed and remanded.\nCorbin, C.J., and Cracraft, J., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "John E. Jennings, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mitchell, Williams, Selig & Tucker, by: Mike Wilson, for appellants.",
      "William Reed, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Billy Ray SHELTON and Sarah Shelton v. Hugh KELLER, Hugh Keller III and Patsy Keller\nCA 87-378\n748 S.W.2d 153\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered April 20, 1988\nMitchell, Williams, Selig & Tucker, by: Mike Wilson, for appellants.\nWilliam Reed, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0068-01",
  "first_page_order": 88,
  "last_page_order": 89
}