Show I JUDGMENT REVERSED rno Court III S mm Free vs S Lit Littie tie tic ct Cf nl ci ciAn An opinIon has been handed down b by the supreme court reversing the tho judgment of at the tho lower loer court the complaint In the tho case cuse ot of Susie M 1 I Free ree against l jannIe M 11 Lit tie et al 01 appellants The Tho action was broUght to c compel time the specific perform at a contract of at sale of part of lot 4 block plat pInt A Snit Salt Lake City sur surI ve sei executed by James T Little tho husband of 1 FannIe M Little durIng his II lifetime Time The lower court found time the Issues In favor tavor ot of respondent and or bred dered tie thu defendants to deed time the prop property orty erty to plaintiff upon the payment b by her ot cit the purchase prIe e agreed upon rho contract was dated on Jan Jun 6 ISIS and aud Mr Ir Little dIed about two years att afterwards before time tho Price agreed upon had been paId Tile The supreme court holds that the could not have compelled Mr lIr I Little to specifically perform time tho agreement even In his life time because his imis wife did not Join In intile tile tho same and hence her imer Interest could not come In court now and compel her to carry out tile the agre agreement ment Further than timan that the evidence shows that the plaintiff did not tile file a claim against the estate of at JamesT James T Little neither IUd she proceed to compel specific per by the eXecutor Of dC his es tate liS as required b by the la law laid down in tha It f oam sec ace Ions 3 to which states that the mode of dure to compel specific performance of contracts against the deceased per persons sons song Hence she sho has Imas no mm cause oi at ac action action tion against time the def defendants who are heirs to the estate ot of James P 1 Little The lower court Is therefore rev and the paso nEo Ordered Wrote of th which is Ie by Chief J Justic I McCarty lIe Carty and Justice |