Pipkin v. Thomas & Hill, Inc.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
SHARP, Chief Justice. 1
Initially, the primary relief which plaintiffs sought in this action was a decree ordering defendant to specifically perform its commitment to provide long-term or “permanent” financing to enable plaintiffs to take up CCB’s interim construction loan on their motel-restaurant project. Historically, courts of equity refused to decree specific performance of a contract to lend money on the ground that the disappointed borrower could be fully compensated by damages because, presumably, money could always be found elsewhere. 2 More recently, however, courts have employed the…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- St. Paul at Chase Corp. v. Manufacturers Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1971
- Tillis v. Calvine Cotton Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
- Perkins v. LangdonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Wilkinson v. . DunbarSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Anderson v. Hilton & Dodge Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1905
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Harsha v. State Savings BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1984
- United Roasters, Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1981
- State Properties, LLC v. RayCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
- Meyers v. Imperial Cas. Indem. Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1984
- Stacy v. Merchants BankSupreme Court of Vermont · 1984
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.