## Facts

- C. L. (“Chip”) Morris, an Arkansas cattle ranch owner and rodeo participant, agreed to employ Archie Sparrow, a cowboy and horse trainer, for 16 weeks at $400.
- The parties disputed whether Morris also agreed to give Sparrow a specific brown horse, Keno, as part of Sparrow’s compensation.
- Sparrow contended Keno was promised as additional consideration; Morris contended Keno was promised only if Sparrow’s work was “satisfactory,” and asserted Sparrow’s performance was inadequate.
- When Sparrow arrived, Keno was largely untrained; Sparrow used his spare time to train Keno into a roping horse with materially increased value.
- At the end of the work period, Morris paid Sparrow $400 but refused to deliver Keno.
- Sparrow sued in equity for specific performance in chancery court seeking delivery of Keno; the chancellor ordered Morris to deliver the horse.
- Morris appealed, arguing specific performance was improper, Sparrow failed any “satisfactory work” condition, and Sparrow’s acceptance of a check marked “labor paid in full” created an accord and satisfaction.

## Issues

1. Whether equity may order specific performance of an agreement to deliver a particular chattel (a specific horse) rather than limit the claimant to damages.
2. Whether Sparrow’s entitlement to the horse was conditioned on “satisfactory” performance and, if so, whether the evidence supported the chancellor’s finding that the condition was met.
3. Whether Sparrow’s acceptance of a wage check bearing a “paid in full” notation constituted an accord and satisfaction barring the separate claim for the horse.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the decree ordering delivery of Keno to Sparrow.
- The court held specific performance was available because the contract concerned specific goods and damages were inadequate given the horse’s peculiar value after Sparrow’s training.
- The court declined to disturb the chancellor’s factual finding that Sparrow was entitled to the horse; the finding was not against the preponderance of the evidence.
- The court held there was no accord and satisfaction because the check notation related to the undisputed wage obligation and did not show mutual intent to settle the separate dispute over the horse.

## Legal Principles

- A court of equity may order specific performance for delivery of specific or ascertained personal property when special circumstances make money damages inadequate, including where the chattel has peculiar or unique value.
- Statutory authority allowing specific performance for nondelivery of specific goods supports equitable relief without giving the seller the option to retain the goods and pay damages.
- In equity appeals, factual findings by the chancellor are upheld unless against the preponderance of the evidence.
- A “paid in full” notation on a payment instrument does not create accord and satisfaction absent a bona fide dispute over the amount paid and a clear, mutual intent to settle all obligations; payment of an undisputed debt does not discharge a separate disputed claim.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the alleged compensation agreement by ordering delivery of the specific horse, finding damages inadequate due to the horse’s special value after Sparrow’s training, and held that a wage check marked “labor paid in full” did not extinguish the separate, disputed obligation to transfer the horse.


Morris v. Sparrow, 225 Ark. 1019, 287 S.W.2d 583 (Ark. 1956)