Foust v. . Shoffner
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Bill for the repayment of money, filed to Fall Term, 1860, of the Court of Equity of Randolph, and set for hearing upon bill, answer and proofs, at Spring Term, 1867, and transmitted to this court.
Read the full summary
Bill for the repayment of money, filed to Fall Term, 1860, of the Court of Equity of Randolph, and set for hearing upon bill, answer and proofs, at Spring Term, 1867, and transmitted to this court. The bill alleged that the complainant had contracted with the defendants verbally for a tract of land, and afterwards had been compelled by suit to pay the notes given for the purchase money; that he was advised that the contract was void, because it was not in writing, and that therefore he could not ash a Court of Equity to decree its specific performance ; that owing to his poverty he had been…
1Opinion of the CourtPearson, C. J.
There can be no doubt when one gives his note as the price of a tract of land, and takes no bond for title, but relies upon the verbal promise of the vendor to make a deed, that if the vendor collects the note by judgment, and then refuses to make title, and takes advantage of the Statute of Frauds, a Court of Equity will not allow him to keep the money, but will compel him to refund, on the ground that the note was obtained by a fraudulent mis representation, and a false promise; and in sucb case, the purchaser may maintain a bill, and require the vendor either to comph' with the confidence…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Durham Consolidated Land & Improvement Co. v. GuthrieSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
- Schechinger v. GaultSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Brown v. HobbsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911