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.

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.