Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Cordon

• Decision Date: 20 November 1935
• Docket Number: 37.
• Citation: 182 S.E. 496,208 N.C. 723
• Parties: UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO. v. CORDON et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

182 S.E. 496

208 N.C. 723

UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO. v. CORDON et al.

No. 37.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 20, 1935

Appeal from Superior Court, Beaufort County; Cranmer, Judge.

Action by the Union Central Life Insurance Company against J. C Cordon and another. From the judgment, the plaintiff appeals.

No error.

Refusal to submit issues tendered by plaintiff and submission of issues tendered by defendant held not error, where issues submitted were those arising on pleadings and were essential for determination of controversy.

This was an action brought by plaintiff to recover of defendant J C. Cordon (George Harris was a cropper) two certain tracts of land (405 acres) describing same, in Beaufort county, N. C.

The defendant admitted plaintiff's ownership of the land, but denied other material allegations of the complaint and alleged that plaintiff breached its parol contract to convey the land to him and that he had made necessary permanent improvements on the land, by a drainage system, ditching, and building a new barn, the cost amounting to $2,100. The defendant further alleged: "The building of this barn and all these improvements were therefore done with the express knowledge and authorization of the plaintiff under a promise to make a good and valid contract to convey or deed and trust deed or mortgage to secure the purchase money, and this defendant says that he believed he would become a purchaser as hereinbefore stated until the receipt of a letter from the said Brooks and his attorney demanding that he vacate and turn the place over, which thing he refused unless and until he was paid for the improvements set out in his answer; plaintiff then sold the farm and purchaser took possession and he was ousted." The defendant Cordon also prayed for general relief.

The issues submitted to the jury, and their answers thereto, were as follows:

"1. Is the plaintiff insurance company the owner of the land described in the pleadings? Answer: Yes.

2. Did the plaintiff execute and deliver contract to convey to the defendant according to the agreement referred to in the pleadings? Answer: No.

3. Did the defendant enter into possession of said land under agreement of plaintiff to convey to him? Answer: Yes.

4. Did the defendant while occupying said land make necessary permanent improvements thereon? Answer: Yes.

5. If so, what was the value of said improvements to the said land? Answer: $1,500.00-fifteen hundred dollars.

6. What sum as rents for the land shall the defendant be charged with? Answer: $1,000.00-one thousand dollars."

The court below rendered judgment on the verdict. Plaintiff made numerous exceptions and assignments of error, and appealed to the Supreme Court.

J. D Paul and MacLean & Rodman, all of Washington, N. C., for appellant.

Ward & Grimes, of Washington, N. C., for appellee.

CLARKSON Justice.

There is no controversy in regard to the first issue-the ownership of the land. The main contentions of the litigants were to the second and third issues, as follows: "(2) Did the plaintiff execute and deliver contract to convey to the defendant according to the agreement referred to in the pleading? (3) Did the defendant enter into possession of said land under agreement of plaintiff to convey to him?" The jury answered the second issue, "No," and the third issue, "Yes." Upon a careful reading of the evidence, we think it was sufficient to be submitted to the jury on these two issues. The credibility of the evidence was for the jury to determine.

N.C. Code 1935 (Michie) § 988, is as follows: "All contracts to sell or convey any lands, tenements or hereditaments, or any interest in or concerning them, and all leases and contracts for leasing land for the purpose of digging for gold or other minerals, or for mining generally, of whatever duration; and all other leases and contracts for leasing lands exceeding in duration three years from the making thereof, shall be void unless said contract, or some memorandum or note thereof, be put in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or by some other person by him thereto lawfully authorized."

In Eaton v. Doub, 190 N.C. 14, 22, 128 S.E....