Stout v. Crutchfield
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
BALEY, Judge.
Defendants contend that the trial court erred in holding that they were tenants at will. They take the position that they have the right to possession of the house and lot in question by virtue of a document signed by Henry H. Stout on 9 January 1966.
William Crutchfield testified without contradiction that after Stoco purchased the property, Stout offered to sell it to defendants. Defendants were unable to purchase it, but they agreed to rent it at $68.00 per month. Stout then offered the property for sale to the public, and defendants were annoyed by prospective purchasers who…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Choate Rental Co. v. JusticeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
- Barbee v. . LambSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- Sappenfield v. . GoodmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kent v. HumphriesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
- Kent v. HumphriesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
- Nesbit v. CribbsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010