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

Mitchill (P), wanted to buy property from Lath (D). Across the road, on property belonging to another, D had an icehouse, which they might remove. P found the icehouse objectionable and wanted it removed. D had made an oral agreement with P that D would remove the icehouse on the adjoining property. Relying on this promise, P bought the property. The written contract was completely integrated. P moved onto the property and got her deed and spent considerable sums improving the property for a summer residence. D refused to remove the icehouse that next spring as promised. P sued to compel removal under specific performance. Judgment was entered for P. The appellate court affirmed. 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.