Farthing v. Rochelle Et Ux
Citation | 131 N. C. 563,43 S.E. 1 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Decision Date | 18 December 1902 |
Parties | FARTHING et al. v. ROCHELLE et ux. |
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE — SUFFICIENT DESCRIPTION—IDENTIFICATION OF LAND—EVIDENCE—VENDEE'S WILLINGNESS TO PERFORM.
1. Plaintiff telegraphed defendant, "I will give you two thousand dollars for your lot, if accepted to-night, " and defendant replied, "Will accept your offer." Held, that the description, "your lot, " was too indefinite to admit of parol evidence to identify the land in a suit for specific performance.
2. Acts 1891, c. 465, providing that, in actions for possession of or title to realty, parol testimony may be introduced to identify the land sued for, did not do away with the necessity of all description, but simply such particularity of description as would frequently be beyond the immediate reach of the ordinary vendor, so that in a suit for specific performance there must be some form of description to which the evidence can be directed, and by which it may be fitted to the land.
3. In a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell land, in which the description of the property was indefinite, evidence of former negotiations not connected with the contract sought to he enforced, and of a deed to a third party made after commencement of the suit, was not admissible as evidence to locate the land.
4. In a suit to specifically enforce a contract to convey land, it appeared that the vendee at the time of the alleged contract knew that the vendor was a married man, and subsequent to the making of the contract, and on refusal of the vendor's wife to sign the deed, offered to pay the vendor two thirds of the agreed price, and deposit the other third subject to the wife's order when she should sign the deed. Held, that an instruction that, if the jury believed the evidence, they should find that the vendee had been at all times ready and willing to perform, was properly refused.
Appeal from superior court, Durham county; Thos. J. Shaw, Judge.
Action by G. C. Farthing and others against C. W. Rochelle and wife. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
This is an action for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. It is based upon the following correspondence:
Exhibit A: "March 6, 1901. To C. W.
I will give you two thousand dollars for your lot, if accepted to-night. [Signed] G. C. Farthing."
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit F:
The following is the charge of the Judge, as set out in the record:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rodman v. Robinson
......Having taken the contract without the wife's signature, the plaintiff could not obtain a decree compelling her to join in the deed. Farthing v. Rochelle, 131 N. C. 563, 43 S. E. 1; Fortune v. Watkins, 94 N. C. 304. The Code, § 2106, recognizes the right of the husband to alien ......
-
Rodman v. Robinson
......Having. taken the contract without the wife's signature, the. plaintiff could not obtain a decree compelling her to join in. the deed. Farthing v. Rochelle, 131 N.C. 563, 43. S.E. 1; Fortune v. Watkins, 94 N.C. 304. The Code, §. 2106, recognizes the right of the husband to alien without. ......
-
Fisher v. Miller
......Young, 6 Wis. 127, 70 Am. Dec. 453;. O'Malley v. Miller, 148 Wis. 393, 134 N.W. 840;. Stone v. Stanley, 92 N. J. Eq. 310, 112 A. 496;. Farthing [92 Fla. 60] v. Rochelle, 131 N.C. 563, 43 S.E. 1; Elwood v. Smith, 95 N. J. Eq. 195,. 122 A. 889; People's Sav. Bank v. Parisette, 68. Ohio St. ......
- Jones v. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co