Love v. Edmonston
| Decision Date | 30 June 1845 |
| Citation | 5 Ired. 354,27 N.C. 354 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | ROBERT LOVE v. NINIAN EDMONSTON. |
When a contract is once made between parties, it binds and is legally presumed to subsist, until it be shewn to have been performed or rescinded.
Therefore, where A. covenanted with B. that he would pay him rent for a certain tract of land, provided B. continued a contract, respecting the said land, then subsisting between him and C.; held, that before A. could discharge himself from the payment of this rent, he must shew that the contract between B. and C. had been rescinded.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Haywood county, at the Spring Term, 1842, his Honor Judge BAILEY presiding.
This was an action upon a covenant, of which the following is a copy: “Robert Love and Ninian Edmonston agree thus, as respects the tract of land, on which said Edmonston lives, called the Probe Bottom, which has been valued to the said R. Love under a contract with James Lockhart, and said Edmonston agrees thus with the said Love, that, in case the said Lockhart will unincumber the said tract of land from a mortgage to James Greenlee, he will well and truly pay to the said R. Love, agreeably to the said valuation, six hundred dollars, in three annual payments, with interest on the same; but, if otherwise, that the said James Lockhart will not come forward and unincumber the said land, then the said Edmonston will relinquish all claim from any agreement between the said Love and Edmonston, and that the said Edmonston will pay the said Love rent for the present year, provided the said Love hold on to his agreement with James Lockhart. In witness whereof, the said Robert Love and the said Ninian Edmonston have hereunto set their hands and seals, this 11th day of April, 1829.
+-------------------------------+
¦(Signed)¦R. LOVE, [SEAL.] ¦
+--------+----------------------¦
¦ ¦N. EDMONSTON, [SEAL.]”¦
+-------------------------------+
The pleas were, “covenants performed, and no breach.” The sole question on the trial was, whether there was a condition precedent, which the plaintiff was bound to perform, before he could bring his action, in that part of the covenant, which says, “ provided he hold on to his agreement with said Lockhart.”
A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon this point reserved. The court refused to set aside the verdict, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff, from which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murto v. Lemon
... ... binds and is legally presumed to subsist until it be shown to ... have been performed or rescinded." Love v. Edmonston, 27 ... N.C. 354 ... The ... introduction of the indorsed notes presumptively established ... their nonpayment, and their ... ...
- State v. Mitchell