Sessoms v. Bazemore

• Decision Date: 29 September 1920
• Docket Number: 118.
• Citation: 104 S.E. 70,180 N.C. 102
• Parties: SESSOMS ET AL. v. BAZEMORE ET UX.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

104 S.E. 70

180 N.C. 102

SESSOMS ET AL. v. BAZEMORE ET UX.

No. 118.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

September 29, 1920

Appeal from Superior Court, Hertford County; W. A. Devin, Judge.

Action by J. D. Sessoms and others against A. G. Bazemore and wife, Sydney. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. No error.

Language of contract executed by landowner and his wife, "I do hereby agree to sell my farm to (plaintiff) for $7,000 any time within 30 days," specifying the date, and promising to execute a deed on payment, was sufficiently definite to admit parol evidence to fit description of property claimed as subject-matter in plaintiff's suit for specific performance.

The action is for specific performance of a written contract to convey land, duly executed by defendant and his wife, the pertinent portions of said contract being in terms as follows:

"I do hereby agree to sell my farm to Mr. J. D. Sessoms for $7,000 any time within 30 days. Tms the 3d day of October, 1917. If he pays me the money me & my wife will make him a deed or to whom he may direct.

A. G. Bazemore.

Sydney Bazemore."

On the issues presented in the pleadings, there was verdict for plaintiff. Judgment, and defendants excepted and appealed.

Rogers & Williams, of Ahoskie, and Winston & Matthews, of Windsor, for appellants.

Roswell C. Bridger, of Winton, and Stanley Winborne, of Murfreesboro, for appellees.

HOKE, J.

The due execution of the contract, including the privy examination of the feme defendant, is admitted in the pleadings. The tender of the purchase price within the time, and plaintiff's readiness and ability to perform, and the identity of the land claimed as the subject-matter of the contract, are also clearly established, and the question presented and chietly argued before us is whether the language of the written contract is sufficiently definite to permit the reception of parol evidence to fit the description to the property claimed as the subject-matter of the contract. On that question, the decisions of our court are in full support of his honor's ruling in the admission of the testimony, and the judgment of the superior court is affirmed. Norton v. Smith, 179 N.C. 553, 103 S.E. 14; Lewis v. Murray, 177 N.C. 17, 97 S.E. 750, and authorities cited.

No error.