Legal Opinion

Hutchins v. Honeycutt

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 30, 1974No. 80PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HUSKINS, Justice.

The sole question for our determination is whether, under the facts and circumstances disclosed on the record, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance.

“It is accepted doctrine that a binding contract to convey land, when there has been no fraud or mistake or undue influence or oppression, will be specifically enforced.” Combes v. Adams, 150 N.C. 64, 63 S.E. 186 (1908) ; Boles v. Caudle, 133 N.C. 528, 45 S.E. 835 (1903) ; Whitted v. Fuquay, 127 N.C. 68, 37 S.E. 141 (1900) ; see Dobbs, Remedies § 12.10 (1973).

Generally speaking, however, specific…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Spartan Equipment Co. v. Air Placement Equipment Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  2. Combes v. . AdamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  3. State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  4. Boles v. Caudle.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  5. Whitted v. Fuquay.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1900

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Kidd v. EarlySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  2. Williams v. HabulCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012
  3. Whalehead Properties v. Coastland Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  4. Weiss v. WoodyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  5. Anderson v. WalkerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2018

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API