Dixson v. C. E. Johnson Realty Co.
| Decision Date | 22 January 1936 |
| Docket Number | 756. |
| Citation | 183 S.E. 382,209 N.C. 354 |
| Parties | DIXSON v. C. E. JOHNSON REALTY CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County; Hill, Special Judge.
Action by T. B. Dixson against the C. E. Johnson Realty Company. From the judgment, defendant appeals.
No error.
Vendor held not relieved of contract obligation to repurchase lot if purchaser was not satisfied therewith at end of year because of purchaser's failure of strict performance due to vendor's request for extension for another year.
This was an action to recover on the following contract:
"'We Sell the Earth'
C. E Johnson Realty Company
Real Estate and Fire Insurance
Reputation Our Capital: : Reliability and Promptness
November 6th, 1928.
C. E Johnson Realty Company hereby agrees to refund to T. B Dixson, the full purchase price of $4,837.80 for Lot No. 14 in 'Stratford Place,' with 6% interest, on November 6th, 1929, in the event the above named purchaser should not be entirely satisfied with purchase of said lot.
Yours very truly,
C. E. Johnson Realty Co.
By [Signed] C. E. Johnson, Treas.
Attest:
[Signed] R. C. Johnson Sec.
We hereby agree to renew the above contract and extend the terms and guarantee for another twelve months to November 6th, 1930.
C. E. Johnson Realty Co.,
By [Signed] R. C. Johnson, Treasurer.
[Signed] M. A. Biggs, Witness."
The prayer of plaintiff in his complaint was for "Such other and further relief in the premises as to the Court shall seem proper."
The evidence discloses that demand was made by plaintiff on defendant, or its duly authorized agent, within the time limit for the performance of its written contracts, and defendant failed and neglected to perform, and appealed to plaintiff to give another year in which to perform its contract, promising to put same in writing. This extension of time and forbearance was given by plaintiff with the assurances made by defendant and relied on by plaintiff, which later the extension of performance was denied and repudiated by defendant. The plaintiff was at all times ready, able, and willing to perform his part of the contract. The present action was instituted on November 5, 1931, within the extension time for performance.
The issues submitted to the jury and their answers thereto were as follows:
"1. Did the plaintiff and the defendant, on November 6, 1928, enter into a written contract by the terms of which the defendant agreed to refund to the plaintiff the full purchase price of $4,837.80 for Lot No. 14 in Stratford Place, with 6% interest, in the event the plaintiff should not be entirely satisfied with the purchase of said lot on November 6, 1929, as alleged? Answer: Yes.
2. If so, did the plaintiff and defendant thereafter contract and agree in writing to extend the terms of said alleged agreement and continue same until November 6, 1930, as alleged? Answer: Yes.
3. Did the plaintiff elect and offer to sell, and was he ready, able and willing to convey said parcel of land to the defendant, within the time specified in said alleged agreements? Answer: Yes.
4. Did the plaintiff and the defendant before Nov. 6, 1930, orally contract and agree to extend the provisions of said alleged agreements for a further period of twelve months and until November 6, 1931? Answer: Yes.
5. If so, did the plaintiff within the time specified in said alleged oral agreement elect and offer, and was he ready, able and willing to convey to the defendant the said parcel of land? Answer: Yes.
6. Did the defendant, within the time specified in said alleged oral agreement, decline and refuse to accept a conveyance of said property and pay therefor the sum of $4,837.80, with interest, as alleged? Answer: Yes."
The defendant made numerous exceptions and assignments of error, and appealed to the Supreme Court.
Parrish & Deal and Calvin Graves, Jr., all of Winston-Salem, for appellant.
Ingle & Rucker, of Winston-Salem, for ap...
To continue reading
Request your trial