Spivey v. Harrell
| Decision Date | 22 October 1888 |
| Parties | SPIVEY et al. v. HARRELL et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Bertie county; AVERY, Judge.
Action by Spivey and others against T. J. Harrell and others to recover land. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant T. J. Harrell appeals.
In an action to recover land, an answer alleging that plaintiff was to buy the land, and let defendant have it "at a little advance," but not alleging that he bought for defendant, or that defendant supplied the money, is not sufficient to raise the question of a parol trust.
James E. Moore, for appellant.
The following is a copy of so much of the case settled on appeal for this court as need be reported: The plaintiffs put in evidence the record of a special proceeding entitled Wilson et al. v. T. J. Harrell. I
Unquestionably, t
If the purpose was to allege an agreement and a parol trust created b with plaintiff Spivey that said Spivey was to buy the land, and let defendant have it, said Spivey agreeing to do so; this defendant paying him a little advance upon it, or a little more than he should give, using the word "little." It is not alleged that the appellees purchased the land for the appellant, or that the latter supplied the money to purchase it. On the contrary the appellees were to purchase it for themselves, and afterwards sell it to the appellant at a "little advance" (whatever that might mean) upon the price they paid. The agreement specifies no certain price to be paid, nor one capable of being reduced to certainty. At most, the appellees agreed by parol to sell to the appellant a certain interest in land at a price not fixed. This created no trust, and no contract that a court of equity will enforce. No such issue as that proposed by the appellant was raised by the pleadings, and the court properly refused to submit it to the jury. Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial