Albea v. Griffin
| Decision Date | 30 June 1838 |
| Citation | 22 N.C. 9,2 Dev. 9 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | SAMUEL ALBEA v. WILLIAM GRIFFIN et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Although payment of the purchase money, taking possession, and making improvements will not entitle the vender to the specific performance of a parol agreement for the sale of land, yet he has, in Equity, a right to an account of the purchase money advanced, and the value of his improvements, deducting therefrom the annual value during his possession.
The case of Baker v. Carson (ante 1 vol. p. 381) approved.
THIS was a bill for the specific execution of a contract for the sale of a tract of land containing fifty acres. The defence was the act of 1819 avoiding parol contracts for the sale of land and slaves.
Upon the hearing the case was, that the ancestor of the defendants contracted to convey the land to the plaintiff, for fifty dollars, to be taken up in goods at the store of the plaintiff--that the goods were in part delivered--that the land was surveyed, and the plaintiff put in possession of it by the vendor-- that he, the plaintiff, built a house upon it, and that the vendor gave him the assistance in raising it, which is usual between neighbours in the country. The vendor died without having executed a deed for the land, and it descended to the defendants.
Caldwell for the plaintiff .
Burton for the defendant .
GASTON, Judge, after stating the facts as above, proceeded:
It is objected on the part of the defendants that by our act of 1819 all parol contracts to convey land are void, and that no part performance can, in this State, take a parol contract out of the operation of that statute. We admit this objection to be well founded, and we hold as a consequence from it that the contract being void, not only its specific performance cannot be enforced, but that no action will lie in law or equity for damages because of non-performance. But we are nevertheless of opinion that the plaintiff has an equity which entitles him to relief, and that parol evidence is admissible for the purpose of shewing that equity. The plaintiff's labour and money have been expended on improving property which the ancestor of the defendants encouraged him to expect should become his own, and by the act of God, or by the caprice of the defendants, this expectation has been frustrated. The consequence is a loss to him and a gain to them.--It is against conscience that they should be enriched by gains thus acquired to his injury. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eaton v. Doub
... ... before aiding such vendors to recover possession of the land ... Baker v. Carson, 21 N.C. 381; Albea v ... Griffin, 22 N.C. 9; Dunn v. Moore, 38 N.C. 364; ... Love v. Neilson, 54 N.C. 339; Daniel v ... Crumpler, 75 N.C. 184; Hedgepeth v ... ...
-
City of Wilmington v. Bryan
... ... to pay for the benefit he has received from labor performed ... while the contract was in force. Albea v. Griffin, ... 22 N.C. 9; Tucker v. Markland, 101 N.C. 426, 8 S.E ... 169, and cases cited. In Albea v. Griffin, Judge Gaston says: ... "The ... ...
-
Grantham v. Grantham
...doctrine of part performance, however, has no place in our jurisprudence, and will not dispense with the necessity of a writing. Albea v. Griffin, 22 N.C. 9; Allen v. Chambers, 39 N.C. 125; Ballard Boyette, 171 N.C. 24, 86 S.E. 175. The logical result was a train of decisions declaring that......
-
Rochlin v. P. S. West Const. Co.
...repudiates the contract can take any advantage or benefit under it.' Wilkie v. Womble, 90 N.C. 254; Barnes v. Brown, 71 N.C. 507; Albea v. Griffin, 22 N.C. 9. In the last cited case the Court held that the payment of the purchase price, the taking of possession of the premises, and making i......