"{\"id\": \"5313492\", \"name\": \"MICHAEL ROYOS CRUZ, Appellee v. MANUEL C. MESA, Appellant\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"Cruz v. Mesa\", \"decision_date\": \"1958-09-15\", \"docket_number\": \"Civil No. 8-A\", \"first_page\": 30, \"last_page\": 31, \"citations\": \"1 Guam 30\", \"volume\": \"1\", \"reporter\": \"Guam Reports\", \"court\": \"District Court of Guam\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Guam\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T23:37:51.366479+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"Before FURBER, Chief Justice, and TOOMIN, Associate Justice, High Court of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and SHRIVER, United States Judge, District Court of Guam\", \"parties\": \"MICHAEL ROYOS CRUZ, Appellee v. MANUEL C. MESA, Appellant\", \"head_matter\": \"MICHAEL ROYOS CRUZ, Appellee v. MANUEL C. MESA, Appellant\\nCivil No. 8-A\\nDistrict Court of Guam Appellate Division\\nSeptember 15, 1958\\nCounsel for Appellee: Robert E. Duffy\\nCounsel for Appellant: Joaquin C. Arriola\\nBefore FURBER, Chief Justice, and TOOMIN, Associate Justice, High Court of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and SHRIVER, United States Judge, District Court of Guam\", \"word_count\": \"231\", \"char_count\": \"1398\", \"text\": \"PER CURIAM\\nOPINION\\nThe appellee, plaintiff below, brought this action against the appellant, defendant below, for specific performance of a contract to sell land. At the time the contract was made the land was part of a larger lot. The appellee caused a survey to be made of the land which was the subject of sale which survey included a right-of-way not included in the original sale.\\nThe testimony showed that the survey was made after the appellant had pointed out the boundaries, including the right-of-way and that the appellant signed the survey map.\\nWe agree that the appellee was entitled to specific performance of the contract. The appellant filed a cross-complaint which was not ruled upon by the trial court as should have been done. The findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment make it clear that the trial court had held against the allegations made in the cross-complaint and it would serve no useful purpose to remand solely for the purpose of dismissing it.\\nThe judgment is affirmed.\"}"