Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Medford, 385

Decision Date21 November 1962
Docket NumberNo. 385,385
Citation258 N.C. 146,128 S.E.2d 141
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesWACHOVIA BANK & TRUST COMPANY and Mrs. Ruby M. Wilson, Co-Executors of the Estate of Burke E. Wilson v. Savannah Jones MEDFORD.

Hudson, Ferrell, Petree, Stockton, Stockton & Robinson, by Norwood Robinson, R. M. Stockton, Jr., Winston-Salem, for plaintiffs, appellants.

Blackwell, Blackwell, Canady & Eller, by T. Winfield Blackwell, Jack F. Canady, Winston-Salem, for defendant, appellee.

HIGGINS, Justice.

The plaintiffs make these contentions: (1) The limitation of 30 days was not controlling. (2) Mr. Wilson was entitled to reasonable time thereafter for title examination. (3) The tender of the purchase price and the demand for a deed on September 2, 1960, were within a reasonable time. (4) The defendant was estopped to plead failure to give notice and make tender by participating in an effort to clear up the title.

The defendant, on the other hand, contends: (1) The option specifically provided that a demand must be made within 30 days from June 10, 1960. (2) Cash in full, $15,000.00, (less $100.00 paid for the option) must be paid at the end of 30 days from June 10, 1960. (3) Within the 30-day period Mr. Wilson's counsel notified defendant he had found a defect in her title and was turning it down. (4) After the 30-day period had expired, plaintiffs' attorney requested a written extension or a new option. (5) Refusal of the request was sufficient notice to defeat any estoppel. (6) Mr. Wilson did not give notice of an unqualified election to purchase until after the building had burned and the owner became entitled to $45,000.00 insurance. At that time defendant's liability under the option had terminated.

The plaintiffs' action is not for specific performance, but for damages of $30,100.00, the exact amount of the insurance less the $14,900.00 which would have been due on the option price. Apparently the parties to the option were not too inclined to stand on strict legal rights until the building burned and the owner became the beneficiary of the insurance. After the expiration of 30 days the parties were still at liberty to negotiate further. Of course, the plaintiffs were anxious to pick up $30,000.00 on a $100.00 investment. The defendant was just as anxious to prevent the pick-up. Hence the dispute.

The Court is called upon to interpret the legal rights of the parties under their option. The document was written by Mr. Baldwin, representing Mr. Wilson, 'at Mr. Wilson's direction.' The defendant, without counsel, signed the option in Mr. Wilson's office. 'Any ambiguity * * * is to be inclined against the party who prepared the contract.' Jones v. Palace Realty Co., 226 N.C. 303, 37 S.E.2d 906. Mr. Wilson's option required him to make demand 'within 30 days from the date hereof, upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set out, * * * Cash in full at the end of 30 days, * * *. In the event of the exercise of this option * * * the said Burke E. Wilson may have reasonable additional time for title examination.' How was Mr. Wilson to exercise the right to purchase under the option? According to its plain and unambiguous terms, by the payment or tender of $14,900.00 and demand for a deed within 30 days from June 10, 1960. What is the modifying effect of the term 'may have reasonable additional time for title examination?' The meaning seems to be this: Mr. Wilson, within 30 days...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Kidd v. Early
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1976
    ...would render the provision meaningless. Defendants' contention that the conclusion we have reached is precluded by Trust Co. v. Medford, 258 N.C. 146, 128 S.E.2d 141 (1962) cannot be sustained. In Medford the option required the optionee to demand a deed within thirty days and to pay the pu......
  • Adder v. Holman & Moody, Inc.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 5, 1975
    ...State Ports Authority, 284 N.C. 732, 202 S.E.2d 473; Root v. Allstate Ins. Co., 272 N.C. 580, 158 S.E.2d 829; Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Medford, 258 N.C. 146, 128 S.E.2d 141; Salem Realty Co. v. Batson, 256 N.C. 298, 123 S.E.2d The only ambiguity in the contract before us is contained in......
  • Mazzaro v. Sagun, No. COA08-691 (N.C. App. 6/16/2009)
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 16, 2009
    ...buying property could only be exercised when purchaser made down payment and executed notes); Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Medford, 258 N.C. 146, 149-50, 128 S.E.2d 141, 143-44 (1962) (holding that purchaser's rights terminated where he failed to accept option and tender payment within 30 d......
  • Yates v. Brown, 7
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 19, 1969
    ...by construction favorable to the defendants (Root v. Allstate Insurance Co., 272 N.C. 580, 158 S.E.2d 829; Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Medford, 258 N.C. 146, 128 S.E.2d 141; Salem Realty Co. v. Batson, 256 N.C. 298, 123 S.E.2d 744) and the draftsman, being an attorney familar with the prov......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT