Legal Opinion

House v. Stokes

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 21, 1984No. 839SC180PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

VAUGHN, Chief Judge.

Defendants contend that the trial court erred in denying their motions for summary judgment and dismissal and in grant ing judgment for plaintiff since the contract between the parties was void under the statute of frauds, G.S. 22-2. We find no error.

Pursuant to G.S. 22-2, a contract to convey land is void unless the contract, or some memorandum or note thereof, is put in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith. The writing must contain a description of the land to be conveyed, certain in itself, or capable of being rendered certain by reference to an…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1953
  2. Kidd v. EarlySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  3. Lane v. CoeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  4. Lewis v. . MurraySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  5. Smith v. . JoyceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Powell v. City of NewtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2010
  2. Powell v. City of NewtonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
  3. Wolfe v. VillinesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
  4. Electronic World, Inc. v. BarefootCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
  5. Lambe-Young, Inc. v. CookCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984

12 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