Love v. . Edmonston
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Haywood county, at the Spring Term, 1842, his Honor Judge Bailey presiding. This was an action upon a covenant, of which the following is a copy : “ Robert Love and Ninian Edmonston agree thus, as respects the tract of land, on which said Edmonston lives, called the Probe Bottom, which has been valued to the said R. Love under a contract with James Lockhart, and said Edmonston agrees thus with the said Love, that, in case the said…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Haywood county, at the Spring Term, 1842, his Honor Judge Bailey presiding. This was an action upon a covenant, of which the following is a copy : “ Robert Love and Ninian Edmonston agree thus, as respects the tract of land, on which said Edmonston lives, called the Probe Bottom, which has been valued to the said R. Love under a contract with James Lockhart, and said Edmonston agrees thus with the said Love, that, in case the said Lockhart will unincumber the said tract of land from a mortgage to James Greenlee, he will well and truly pay to the said…
1Opinion of the CourtRuffin, C. J.
The question is rather one of evidence, as to the side from which it should come, than of pleading or of the construction of the contract. As far as these parties bargained for a sale of the land to the defendant, it is to be understood, that the bargain was at an end by the failure of Lockhart (Love’s vendor) to remove his incumbrance on the land; for the rent, now sued for, was to be doe only in the event, that Edmonston’s purchase was not completed, and the case states, that the only objection to the plaintiff’s recovery of the rent was, that the plaintiff did not shew, that he and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Murto v. LemonColorado Court of Appeals · 1904
- Murto v. LemonColorado Court of Appeals · 1904