Hall v. Fisher
| Decision Date | 20 March 1900 |
| Citation | 126 N.C. 205,35 S.E. 425 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | HALL v. FISHER. |
contracts—consideration — impossibility of performance—nonperformance— damages—statute of frauds.
1. An executory parol contract by a grantor, on a sale of lands, to open a street through land not owned by him, to the opening of which the consent of the city authorities would have to be obtained, not being within the power of the promisor to perform, an action for damages for the nonperformance thereof cannot be maintained.
2. An agreement by a vendor of real estate, at the time of sale, to open a street, extending beyond the property sold, in consideration of property conveyed to him in exchange, is within the statute of frauds, and, if not in writing, cannot be enforced; nor can an action for damages be maintained thereon for nonperformance.
Appeal from superior court, Guilford county; Timberlake, Judge.
Action by N. L. Hall against B. J. Fisher for breach of contract. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
J. N. Staples, for appellant.
Bynum & Bynum, for appellee.
The plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he owned a house and lot on Clay street, in the city of Greensboro, which he sold to the defendant for $1,600, and took in part payment therefor a vacant lot on Schenck street, fronting on what was called "Wainman Street, " at the price of $600; that defendant expressly promised and agreed to open Wainman street from Schenck street south to Green street, and this was an inducement for him to take the vacant lot at $600 in part payment for his lot on Clay street; that he executed a deed to defendant for the property on Clay street, and defendant executed a deed to him for the vacant lot on Schenck and Wainman streets; that Wainman street had been located on a map, but had only been opened a short distance further south than the lot the plaintiff bought from defendant; thathe bought this lot for the express purpose of building a residence on it, and this was known to the defendant; that, supposing defendant would open Wainman street as he agreed to do, the plaintiff proceeded to build on said lot a residence worth $1,700; that defendant has failed to open said street, and now declines and refuses to do so, whereby plaintiff has been damaged $1,000. The defendant admits the sale, but denies that he promised, contracted, or undertook to open Wainman street, and says that he did want to open said street for the benefit of his property, and so stated to the plaintiff, but that he never contracted with the plaintiff to do so; that the land over which Wainman street would have run belonged to other persons for the greater part of the distance to Green street, and the plaintiff well knew this; that he did undertake to purchase the right of way, with the view of having said street opened through to Green street, but was unable to do so. The jury found that defendant did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Hobbs
...of the price, it was also a part of the agreement, and was not evidenced by a writing which had been signed by the defendant. Hall v. Fisher, 126 N. C. 205 ; Ide v. Stanton, 15 Vt. 685, 40 Am. Dec. 698. The fact that the defendant in this case paid $5 on the purchase money and took possessi......
-
Consol. Realty Co. v. Richmond Hotel & B. Co.
...there is no legal consideration for either the bond or the contract. To sustain this position, they cite 13 C.J. 330, and Hall v. Fisher, 126 N.C. 205, 35 S.E. 425. The obligations of the parties to the contract set up in the petition are correlative and concurrent. It is an accepted rule t......
-
Brinkley v. Brinkley
...executed, with full recitals of the original promise; that statute applying to executory, and not to executed, contracts (Hall v. Fisher, 126 N. C. 205, 35 S. E. 425; McManus v. Tarleton, 126 N. C. 790, 36 S. E. 338; Choat v. Wright, 13 N. C. 289); and, while it has the effect of a postnupt......
- Grantham v. Grantham, 209.