Smith v. . Arthur
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was a civil action, tried before Merrimon, J., at the Fall Term, 1891, of Swain Superior Court. The plaintiff complained for a balance of purchase-money unpaid for a tract of land recited in the deed as paid, and that the defendants obtained possession of the deed by fraud on their part and mistake on part of plaintiff.
Read the full summary
This was a civil action, tried before Merrimon, J., at the Fall Term, 1891, of Swain Superior Court. The plaintiff complained for a balance of purchase-money unpaid for a tract of land recited in the deed as paid, and that the defendants obtained possession of the deed by fraud on their part and mistake on part of plaintiff. This, defendants deny, and set up that plaintiff was their agent in his original purchase of said land, had not paid the amount of purchase money recited in deed to him, conspired to cheat defendants by misrepresentation, as to value, and executed a deed to defendants…
1Opinion of the Court
Shepherd, J.:
The motion for judgment .upon the pleadings was properly overruled. This is not an action for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land, but for the recovery of an alleged balance of purchase-money for land which has been sold and conveyed to, the defendants by the plaintiff It is true that the plaintiff alleges that the deed was only signed by him, and that its possession by the defendants was procured by fraudulent means; but as the defendants admit its execution, and claim under it, and the plaintiff affirms it by suing for the purchase-money, it must be…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Dobias v. WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- Drake v. . HowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
- Drake v. HowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
- Westmoreland v. . LoweSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- Boutten v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.