Armfield v. Tate
| Decision Date | 30 June 1847 |
| Citation | 7 Ired. 258,29 N.C. 258 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | ROBERT ARMFIELD v. THOMAS R. TATE, EX'R. . |
Where an infant purchased land and gave his note for the purchase money, and, after he became of age, continued in possession of the land and promised to pay the note, Held, that this was a confirmation of the contract by the infant, after he became of age, and he and his representatives were bound by it.
The circumstance, that the vendor was informed, before the completion of the contract, that the vendee intended the place as a residence for his kept mistress, does not vitiate the contract.
The law annexes no eondition that the title-deeds shall be given, before a suit can be commenced on a note given for the purchase money.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Guilford County, at the Spring Term, 1847, his Honor Judge MANLY presiding.
This action was assumpsit with three counts. 1st, upon a promissory note, (a copy of which is annexed,) 2d, upon oral promises to pay the sums therein mentioned; and 3d, upon a quantum valebat for a house and lot in the town of Greensborough. Pleas--the general issue and infancy, to which there were general replications, and to the latter the special replication, that defendant's intestate had promised since arriving at full age.
It was proved that the promissory note was given for a house and lot in the town of Greensborough, and at the same time a bond taken to make a title when the purchase money should be paid: That the intestate at the time was under age, but, after arriving at full age, continued to occupy and claim the lot as his property, and promised expressly to pay the purchase money. The defendant offered to prove that the plaintiff was informed, prior to the conclusion of the sale, that the premises were intended as a dwelling for a family, with one of the members of which the intestate was in the habit of illicit sexual intercourse, but the Court deemed the evidence immaterial and excluded it.
The defendant contended, that the plaintiff could not, in any event, recover the purchase money for the lot, and especially not until after a tender of a title deed. But the Court was of opinion, that the promise to pay, after arriving at full age, being established to the satisfaction of the jury, the plaintiff was entitled, and so instructed the jury. Verdict for the plaintiff. There was a rule for a new trial, 1st. Because of the exclusion of proper testimony. 2d. For misdirection by the Court. Rule discharged and appeal.
(Copy of Bond referred to.)
“$350. One day after date, I promise to pay to Robert Armfield the sum of three hundred and fifty dollars to be paid as follows, one hundred the 1st day of January 1842, one hundred dollars the 1st day of January 1843, and one hundred and fifty dollars the first day of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sawyer v. Sanderson
... ... (Minn.) 506; McConihe & Co. v. McMann, 27 Vt ... 95; Smith v. Godfrey, 28 N.H. 379; Wallace v ... Lark, 32 Am. Rep. 516; Armfield v. Tate, 29 ... N.C. 258; Bishop v. Honey, 34 Tex. 245; Hines v ... Bank, 48 S.E. 120.] ... But ... this doctrine applies ... ...
-
Sawyer v. Sanderson
...Rep. 580; McConihe & Co. v. McMann, 27 Vt. 95; Smith v. Godfrey, 28 N. H. 379, 61 Am. Dec. 617; Wallace v. Lark, 32 Am. Rep. 516; Armfield v. Tate, 29 N. C. 258; Bishop v. Honey, 34 Tex. 245; Hines v. Bank (Ga.) 48 S. E. 120. But the doctrine applies to sales of legitimate articles of comme......
-
Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association v. Mason
...v. Toler, 24 U.S. 258, 11 Wheat. 258, 6 L.Ed. 468; Green v. Collins, 3 Cliff. 494, 10 F. Cas. 1093; Dater v. Earl, 3 Gray 482; Armfield v. Tate, 7 Ired. 258; Read v. Taft, 3 R.I. 175; v. Duke, 10 G. & J. 11; Kreiss v. Seligman, 8 Barb. 439; Michael v. Bacon, 49 Mo. 474; Brunswick v. Valleau......
-
Pineman v. Faulkner
...in the legal course of business, and similar in terms, and in every other way, to other sales made by him from time to time." In Armfield v. Tate, 29 N. C. 258, it was held that: "The circumstances that the vendor was informed, before the completion of the contract, that the vendee intended......