Chambers v. . Massey
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from the Court of Equity of Haywood County, Spring Term, 1851, his Honor Judge Settle presiding. The parties made a parol contract in March, 1848, whereby the defendant agreed to convey to the plaintiff in fee seventy three acres of land for the price of #250, and then put him into possession. The defendant at the same time received from the plaintiff a horse at the price of fifty dollars.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Equity of Haywood County, Spring Term, 1851, his Honor Judge Settle presiding. The parties made a parol contract in March, 1848, whereby the defendant agreed to convey to the plaintiff in fee seventy three acres of land for the price of #250, and then put him into possession. The defendant at the same time received from the plaintiff a horse at the price of fifty dollars. The bill was filed in February, 1850, and states, that, by the agreement, the residue of the purchase money was to be satisfied by the plaintiff’s transferring to the defendant a claim he had by open…
1Opinion of the CourtRuffin, C. J.
The case of Ellis v Ellis, when before the Court on the re-hearing, and the motion for further directions, 1 Dev. Eq. 341 and 398, and that of Albea v Griffin, 2 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 9, dispose of all the points in the present case. As a bill for specific performance, it cannot be sustained, and to that extent it must be dismissed, as the defendant insists on disaffirming the contract, under the statute of frauds. In ordinary cases, the same disposition would be 'made of it, in its alternative aspect of having the alleged payments on account of the purchase money decreed back. As the contract is…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Luton v. Badham.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1900
- Baker v. Carter.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1900
- McCall v. Zachary.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
- Commissioners of Montgomery Co. v. FrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1900
- Luton v. Badham.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1900