Hedgecock v. Tate
Decision Date | 22 April 1915 |
Docket Number | (No. 363.) |
Citation | 85 S.E. 34,168 N.C. 660 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | HEDGECOCK. v. TATE et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Devin, Judge.
Action by J. M. Hedgecock against A. E Tate and others. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This is a civil action, brought to recover damages for failure of the defendants to comply with the terms of an option. The following is a copy of the option:
John A. Barringer, of Greensboro, and T. H. Calvert, of Raleigh, for appellant.
W. P. Bynum, of Greensboro, and Roberson & Barnhardt, of High Point, for appellees.
This case embraces two causes of action—one for specific performance against all the defendants; the other for damages for breach of contract against A. E. Tate, individually; both causes being based upon a certain option given to the plaintiff by A. E. Tate, as administrator of J. B. Richardson, deceased.
The plaintiff cannot enforce specific performance of the option, because there is nothing to show, in the first place, that the executors to the will of J. B. Richardson are given power to sell land. Even if they were vested with the power to sell land, it has been held that that does not give the executors any power to give an option to purchase. Trogden v. Williams, 144 N. C. 194, 56 S. E. 865, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 867.
The plaintiff is not entitled to recover on the other cause of action against the defendant Tate for damages, for the reason that it appears...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Tuskegee v. Sharpe
...269; Tibbs v. Zirkle, 55 W.Va. 49, 46 S.E. 701, 104 Am.St.Rep. 977; Trogden v. Williams, 144 N.C. 192, 194, 56 S.E. 865; Hedgecock v. Tate, 168 N.C. 660, 85 S.E. 34.' (216 Ga. at 555, 556, 118 S.E.2d at The court quoted from Moore v. Trainer, 252 Pa. 367, 97 A. 462, as follows: '. . . 'An e......
-
Rockhill Tennis Club of Kansas City v. Volker
... ... 882; Hickok v. Still, 168 Pa ... 155, 31 A. 1100; Midland County v. Slaughter, 61 ... Tex. Civ. App. 328, 130 S.W. 612; Hedgecock v. Tate, ... 168 N.C. 660; Swift v. Erwin, 148 S.W. 267; 26 R. C ... L. p. 1342, sec. 206; 25 R. C. L. p. 244, sec. 46. (3) The ... option is ... ...
-
Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
...(c) The following additional authorities deny the right of a trustee with a naked power of sale to give and grant an option. Hedgecock v. Tate, 168 N.C. 660; Campbell Coal Co. v. Baker, 83 S.E. 105; v. Shoemaker, 37 App. D. C. 258; Merritt v. Hummer, 122 P. 816; Field v. Small, 17 Colo. 386......
-
Pike v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., 766
...no personal right therein, he is not liable on an implied warranty because the heirs at law are not bound by the contract. Hedgecock v. Tate, 168 N.C. 660, 85 S.E. 34, Ann.Cas.1916D, 449. For the same reason a guardian who contracts to convey the property of his ward is not liable on an imp......