In Brief
The plaintiff sued for specific performance of a property sale agreement allegedly executed by defendant No. 2 as power of attorney holder of defendant No. 1 in 1987. The trial court granted the decree, but the appellate court reversed, finding no proof that the defendants owned the property or that defendant No. 2 held valid power of attorney. The Supreme Court upheld the reversal, holding that specific performance requires proof the vendor has legal title and authority to transfer. Since the defendants denied ownership and no such proof existed, the agreement was unenforceable. The appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.