Simms v. . Killian
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Haywood County, Spring Term 1851, his Honor Judge Settle presiding. ■ This is assumpsit, in which the plaintiff sought to recover the sum of $200, part of the price, which the intestate promised to pay the plaintiff for his iitterest in a tract of land.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Haywood County, Spring Term 1851, his Honor Judge Settle presiding. ■ This is assumpsit, in which the plaintiff sought to recover the sum of $200, part of the price, which the intestate promised to pay the plaintiff for his iitterest in a tract of land. On the general issue, the facts were these: The plaintiff contracted with one Wilde for the purchase of the land at $600, and paid him $210, and took' his obligation to convey to him upon the payment of the residue of the purchase money<■ Afterwards Jones, the defendant’s, intestate, contracted orally…
1Opinion of the CourtRuffin, C. J.
The Court concurs in the opinion of his Honor, which is in accordance with the case of Rice v. Carter, decided here a year ago. The contract concerns the sale of an interest in land, and by the statute of frauds a party to it cannot be charged therewith, unless it be in writing and signed by the party thus sought to be charged. It was argued at-the bar, that the policy of the act was to protect owners of real estate from being deprived of it without written evidence under their own hand, and that a promise to pay money for land is not within the mischief. But the danger seems as great, that a…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Davis v. RobinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- Davis v. . RobinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- Harper v. GoldschmidtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Hall v. Misenheimer.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Love v. Atkinson.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.