Binford v. Steele
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by defendant from Peebles, J., at December Term, 1912, of RICHMOND. Tbis action was brought to recover $250, which plaintiff alleged that he had paid to M. A. Land, agent of defendant to sell him Lot No. 77 in the plat of the W. C. Leak lots in Hamlet, N. C. Defendant denied his liability.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from Peebles, J., at December Term, 1912, of RICHMOND. Tbis action was brought to recover $250, which plaintiff alleged that he had paid to M. A. Land, agent of defendant to sell him Lot No. 77 in the plat of the W. C. Leak lots in Hamlet, N. C. Defendant denied his liability. The facts, so far as the court permitted them to be shown, were that Land, who lived at Hamlet and was engaged in the business of a real estate broker, notified the defendant that plaintiffs would give him $250 for the lot. Defendant told Land that he would make the deed to the lot for that price,…
1Opinion of the Court
WaleeR, J.,
after stating tbe case: As there was no written memorándum of a contract to sell tbe lot, signed by tbe defendant or bis duly authorized agent, tbe transaction must be treated as an offer by plaintiffs to buy tbe lot for $250, and an acceptance by tbe defendant upon tbe condition stated therein, which modified tbe terms of tbe offer, and if plaintiff bad notice of this condition, or private instruction to Land, as it was called in tbe argument, there was no agreement, and this was conceded; but plaintiff contended that be was not bound by this condition, as be bad no notice of it.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hardy v. . WardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Blunt v. TomlinIllinois Supreme Court · 1862
- Comstock v. LagerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
3Cited by1 opinion
- Tate v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915