Henry v. Shore
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
CAMPBELL, Judge.
There was no error in dismissing this action as to all defendants. The summary judgment in favor of Shore was correct for that there was no contract in writing pertaining to the conveyance of the realty as required by North Carolina General Statutes 22-2. “A wholly unexecuted parol contract to sell land is void.” Riggs v. Anderson, 260 N.C. 221, 132 S.E. 2d 312 (1963).
With regard to the Talberts, Miller, and the Savings and Loan Association, the North Carolina registration statute, G.S. 47-18, is controlling. Bruton v. Smith, 225 N.C. 584, 36 S.E. 2d 9 (1945); Eller v. Arnold,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bruton v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- Bruton v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- Eller v. ArnoldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- Riggs v. AndersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
3Cited by3 opinions
- Britt v. AllenCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
- Hill v. Pinelawn Memorial Park, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
- Hill v. Pinelawn Memorial Park, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981