Graves v. Carter
| Decision Date | 31 December 1823 |
| Citation | 9 N.C. 576 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | GRAVES v. CARTER.—From Caswell. |
Parol evidence shall not be received to contradict an averment, in a deed, of the payment of the purchase money.
ASSUMPSIT to recover the balance of the purchase money of a tract of land, which it was alleged plaintiff had sold to defendant. The pleas were the general issue and the acts of 1819, entitled "An act to make void parol contracts for the sale of land and slaves." Upon the trial below the plaintiff proved that he and the defendant had entered into a parol agreement for the sale and purchase of a tract of land, and
that, it was agreed between them that the land should be surveyed, that a deed should be then made, and the purchase money paid by delivering to the plaintiff a bond which defendant held against Thomas Haralson, for $600, and interest thereon, and for the balancea note negotiable and payable at the Milton branch of the New Bern Bank. After the land was surveyed the plaintiff made and executed a deed and delivered it, with a plat of the survey, to Bedford Brown, who was, as he alleged, agent of the defendant to receive the deed. The deed remained in Brown's possession for ten or twelve days, when he went to the defendant's house and informed her that the plaintiff was anxious to close the business, and asked her for the bond of Haralson; she gave it to him, and he afterwards delivered it to the plaintiff. Brown at this time did not give her plaintiff's deed, but thought it probable that he mentioned to her the fact of his having it. Some days afterwards the defendant informed Brown that she would not comply with the contract or receive the deed, and it remained in Brown's possession until the trial of the cause.
On the trial plaintiff gave the deed in evidence, and it contained a recital that for and in consideration of the sum of $2,538, to him in hand paid by the defendant, "the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged," he, the plaintiff, bargained and sold to the defendant the tract of land, etc. For the defendant it was contended: (1) That Bedford Brown could not be constituted an agent to accept the deed except by some writing signed by the defendant. (2) That if his acceptance of the deed did bind the defendant no parol evidence ought to be received to contradict the averment of the deed that the purchase money was paid to the defendant. This objection was overruled by the court, and parol evidence was admitted to show that the balance of...
To continue reading
Request your trial