Northcutt v. Massie
| Decision Date | 08 March 1957 |
| Citation | 301 S.W.2d 355,201 Tenn. 638,5 McCanless 638 |
| Parties | Avery NORTHCUTT v. James MASSIE et al. 5 McCanless 638, 201 Tenn. 638, 301 S.W.2d 355 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Joe R. Hickerson and Pat B. Lynch, Winchester, for appellants (intervening petitioners).
White, Gullett & Phillips, Tom Stewart, Nashville, Ben E. Caldwell, T. J. Swafford, Chattanooga, Richard C. Sorlien, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.
This cause is here on a direct appeal from the Chancery Court of Grundy County. The principal question made in the lawsuit is whether or not the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations.
It seems the bill in this cause was filed to sell a large acreage of land in Grundy County for partition, said real estate belonging to Fannie Moffitt, who, in 1955, died intestate in Grundy County, Tennessee. Sometime later, March 19, 1956, the Greeter Lumber Company filed an intervening petition in said proceeding and sought specific performance of a contract which it claimed to have, whereby T. B. Northcutt, James H. Northcutt and Fannie Moffitt contracted to sell to the Greeters the said Northcutt Woodland, being a pine grove and consisting of about 100 acres, for a price of $3,500. This contract was dated May 18, 1940, and reads as follows:
'State of Tennessee Grundy County
'For and in consideration of One Dollar cash and other valuable considerations, to be paid by us by the Greeter Lumber Company of Altamont of Altamont, Tenn., we T. B. Northcutt, Jas. H. Northcutt & Miss Fanny Moffitt, the only heirs of H. B. Northcutt dead do herein by contract, sell and convey to the said Greeter Lumber Co., a certain piece of property known as the Northcutt Woodland or Pine Grove of 100 acres or more or less all of which is inclosed in a fence and all is on the East side of Pike No. 56 and includes all the standing timber of all kinds together with all the land that it situns on, for a price of $3500.00 Thirth Five Hundred Dollars, and said Northcutt obligate themselves to make a warrantee deed to said Greeters soon as a proper survey can be had or produced conveying the same.
'And we The Greeter Lumber Co., composed of Jno. Greeter, Harvey Greeter, Leo Greeter & Werner Greeter, who compose the Greeter Lumber Co., obligate ourselves to carry out this agreement and trade as is written herein and have bought and closed this trade on this May 18, 1940, at two P.M. o'clock.
'It is further agreed by all parties herein that H. B. Williams may hold this paper agreement & contract until it is carried out by the execution of a deed from Northcutt to Greeter and the full amount of $3500 is paid to said Northcutt by said Greeters.
'This May 18, 1940.
'/s/ T. B. Northcutt
Jas. H. Northcutt
Miss Fanny Moffitt
Signed by Jas. Northcutt
/s/ John Greeter
Harvey Greeter
Leo Greeter
Werner Greeter
Signed by Werner Greeter'
The complainants filed a demurrer to the petition pleading the six year statute of limitations, the seven year statute of limitations and the statute for the prevention of frauds and perjuries, and gross laches.
The Chancellor sustained the demurrer to the defense of the six year statute of limitations and as to the defense of laches.
It is contended that the contract contemplated a survey to be made by the owners preceding their execution of a warranty deed, and that the Greeters cause of action did not accrue, in the absence of a survey, thus entitling the present owners the right to plead the six and seven year statutes of limitations, and gross laches.
The petitioners insist that there was no limit of time placed upon the survey but we must conclude that a reasonable time was contemplated by the parties. See Am.Jur. Vol. 1, Sec. 62.
The defendants contend that often during this nearly sixteen year period the Greeters or some of them approached the owners and were ready and willing to pay the purchase price of $3,500 if complainants would execute and deliver a deed as contracted.
It should be borne in mind that since the contract was made the owners were dying off one by one and during which period there was no compliance with the contract.
The decree of specific performance of a court of equity is largely discretionary with the Court. In Campbell v. Bartlett, 122 Tenn. 208, at page 216, 122 S.W. 250, at page 252, 25 L.R.A.,N.S., 639, the Court said:
'Where there is any change in the circumstances, either of the estate or the parties, as the falling in of lives, or any great rise or fall in value, a specific performance will not be decreed.'
Specific performance is largely a matter within the sound...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowe v. Smith
...of Sale." "The decree of specific performance of a court of equity is largely discretionary with the Court." Northcutt v. Massie, 201 Tenn. 638, 642, 301 S.W.2d 355, 356-57 (1957). Despite their argument on appeal that the trial court erred in not allowing Mr. Lowe to retake the business, i......
-
Morrow v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Ry. Co.
...burden and benefit. Id. at 581-82, 53 S.W. 944. The court finds authorities cited by the defendants inapposite. In Northcutt v. Massie, 201 Tenn. 638, 301 S.W.2d 355 (1957), the suit was on an unrecorded contract to sell land, in which the vendors agreed "to make a warrantee (sic) deed ... ......
-
Brister v. Brubaker's Estate
...discretion of the court; for which proposition counsel for defendants cite Morrison v. Searight, 63 Tenn. 476, 481; Northcutt v. Massie, 201 Tenn. 638, 301 S.W.2d 355, 357; Parsons v. Hall, 184 Tenn. 363, 199 S.W.2d 99; Johnson v. Browder, 185 Tenn. 601, 207 S.W.2d 1, and Gibson's Suits in ......
-
Schaefer v. Rivers
...have been done before closing. Where there is no set time for a survey, it must be done within a reasonable time. Northcutt v. Massie, 201 Tenn. 638, 301 S.W.2d 355, 356 (1957); 91 C.J.S., Vendor and Purchaser, § 101, p. 993 (1955). Plaintiffs contended that they substantially complied, as ......