Sain v. Dulin
| Decision Date | 30 June 1861 |
| Citation | 59 N.C. 195,6 Jones 195 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | BASIL SAIN v. WILLIAM M. DULIN. |
Where the answer to a bill for a specific performance of a parol contract to convey land, and in the alternative for compensation for improvements, denies the terms of the contract as set out in the bill, and alleges a different one, which was not performed on account of the improper conduct of the plaintiff, and the defendant also insists on the statute of frauds, it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation for value added to the land by such improvements.
CAUSE removed from the Court of Equity of Davie county.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had agreed by parol to sell to him a certain piece or parcel of land lying in the said county of Davie, on Dutchman creek, at the price of $7.50 per acre, which land is described in plaintiff's bill, and he alleges that after some disagreement as to one of the lines, they agreed finally as to the limits of the tract, and plaintiff went into possession and kept it for a year; that during that time, he built a house on the premises worth $125, and cleared and otherwise materially added to the value of the land by making other improvements on it; that he held a note on the defendant for over $300, which it was agreed should be taken up by the defendant as a part of the price of the land; that plaintiff has always been ready and willing to make payment of the remainder of the purchase-money, and has offered to do so, but that the defendant without any plausible excuse for such breach of faith, has sold and conveyed the said land to another. The prayer is for a specific performance of the agreement. “Or if that agreement is not in law valid, and cannot be executed,” he prays that the defendant be decreed to account with him for the value of the improvements added to the land, and for general relief.
The answer of the defendant sets out that he did make a contract with the plaintiff for a parcel of land at $7.50 per acre, according to particular boundaries agreed on between them, and he avers that he has been always willing to comply with the agreement, but that the defendant after such agreement was entered into, insisted upon a boundary altogether different from that agreed on, and became offended with defendant, and refused to speak to him for some time, and acted in such a manner as to induce him to believe that he would not accept a deed on the real terms of the contract; ??hat the defendant did not offer to give him up the said $300 note, nor to pay the remainder of the purchase-money, and he admits that he has sold the land to one Gaither.
The defendant insists on the statute of frauds in bar of plaintiff's claim to relief. The cause was set down for hearing on bill, answer and proofs taken in the cause, and sent to this Court by consent.
Clement, for the plaintiff .
No counsel appeared for the defendant in this Court.
The object of the bill is to obtain compensation for improvements which the plaintiff alleges that he made upon a certain parcel of land, which the defendant had agreed by parol to convey to him. A prayer for specific performance is, indeed contained in the bill,...
To continue reading
Request your trial