Norfleet v. . Southall
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Gates. The bill in this case was filed to enforce the specific execution of an agreement, alleged to have been entered into between the Complainant and Defendant.
Read the full summary
From Gates. The bill in this case was filed to enforce the specific execution of an agreement, alleged to have been entered into between the Complainant and Defendant. The parties having built a saw and grist mill on Bennett's creek, at their joint expence, it was agreed that Southall should convey Ms title thereto to Norfleet, upon Norfleet’s paying to him the sum which the mill had cost him: and it was further agreed that four persons then named should determine what sum Southall had thus expended. When the agreement was made, Southall declared, in the presence of witnesses, that no part of…
1Opinion of the Court
Tayior, Chief-Justice,
delivered the opinion of the Court:
It is a general rule that an agreement, to be specifically enforced, should be certain and defined, and be proved or admitted to have been concluded by the pai'ties. But the objection to this bill meets us in limine, that the agreement sought to be enforced, was never entered into by the parties. The bill pi’ays that the Defendant may be compelled to convey on being paid the money he has expended, in building the mill $ whereas, Ms contract was that he would convey, upon four persons, then named by the parties, ascertaining what it cost…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gasch v. DaviesWashington Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by1 opinion
- Town of Irvington ex rel. Warranty Building & Loan Ass'n v. DubrowPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1932