This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Stewart (P) sued for specific performance on a contract with London (D) to install a heating system. P's original complaint stated that the system that was installed was incomplete, and done in an unskilled and unworkmanlike manner. P prayed for specific performance and $8,250 in damages. P dropped the damage charge and elected to proceed with the specific performance part of the complaint. D plead that there was a mutual cancellation of the contract. The court found that there had been no such cancellation. After presentation of the evidence, the court decreed that D was mandatorily ordered and directed to comply with the terms of the contract, in its entirety. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.