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.

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

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.