Ward v. Ledbetter

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GASTON
• Citation: Ward v. Ledbetter, 1 Dev. 496, 21 N.C. 496 (N.C. 1836)
• Decision Date: 31 December 1836
• Parties: JESSE WARD v. JONATHAN LEDBETTER, et al.

1 Dev. & Bat.Eq. 496

21 N.C. 496

JESSE WARD

v.JONATHAN LEDBETTER, et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December Term, 1836.

Upon an executory agreement for the purchase of land, the payment of the purchase-money constitutes the vendee, in equity, the owner; and he has a right to a conveyance from every person having the legal title, with notice of his claim. Thus, where A. purchased land of B., and took a bond to secure his title, and subsequently sold to C., who paid the purchase-money, which came to the hands of B.; and took a bond for title from A.; and the latter, to defeat the claim of C., surrendered to B. his bond; B., having notice of C.'s equity, is bound to convey to him. And if C. has received any part of the consideration for the surrender of the bond by A. to B., that is no defence to C.'s bill; but must be brought forward as the foundation of a distinct suit.

Parol evidence, although it may be inadmissible to reform a written contract, yet is received to repel a specific execution of it; but in the latter case, it cannot be received to show that the written contract was not the one made; but to prove fraud, accident, or surprise, raising an equity to rebut the claim to specific execution.

IN the month of April, 1830, Jonathan Ledbetter sold to Jonathan Elms a tract of land lying in the county of Rutherford, at the price of six hundred dollars; received Elms's notes to secure the payment of the purchase-money, and delivered to him a bond in the penal sum of twelve hundred dollars, conditioned to make a warrantytitle thereto upon the payment of said notes. Elms finding it impracticable to raise the money to make the payment, and having offered to Ledbetter fifty dollars to be freed from the contract, which offer was refused, on the fifth of March, 1831, sold all his interest in the said land to Jesse Ward, at the price of five hundred and fifty dollars; and to secure a title to the said Ward, executed a bond with Jones Bradley as his surety, with condition to be void on the said Elms executing a good title to said Ward, after a reasonable time allowed for procuring a title to himself from Ledbetter. Ward paid the purchase-money to Elms, who paid it over immediately to Ledbetter, and therewith, and by fifty dollars which he advanced, discharged in full his notes to Ledbetter. Elms thereupon required of Ledbetter to execute a conveyance, according to the stipulations of his bond; and Ledbetter refusing to make a conveyance, except with a reservation or exception of an estate for life to his, the said Ledbetter's father, therein, Elms instituted a suit in equity against him to compel a conveyance. Pending this suit, Ledbetter had full notice of Elms's sale to Ward, and of Ward's payment of the purchase-money; and made several attempts to repurchase the land from Ward; but failing in these, he entered into an agreement with Elms, who was about leaving the state, in order to escape from his creditors, whereby, in consideration of certain property and money, either advanced, or secured to be paid unto said Elms, amounting, in the whole, to five hundred and fifty dollars, Elms dismissed the suit in equity at his proper costs, and bound himself to surrender to Ledbetter the bond which the latter had given to make a title. This compromise was made the 24th Nov. 1832: Elms immediately thereafter absconded; and at the next term of the Court of Equity for the county of Rutherford, Ward filed this, bill against the said Ledbetter, Elms, and Bradley, charging these matters, and praying for a proper conveyance of title; and for general relief.

D. F. Caldwell, for the plaintiff .

A. M. Burton, and Badger, for the defendant .

It is unnecessary to state the defences set up by the defendant Ledbetter, nor the testimony filed, as they are set forth in the opinion of

GASTON, Judge, who, after stating the substance of the bill, as above, proceeded as follows:

The defendant Ledbetter resists this claim, on three grounds; first, he alleges that the contract between himself and Elms was not for an absolute sale of the land in dispute, but for a sale with an exception of an estate for life therein to his, the defendant Ledbetter's, father; secondly, for that the plaintiff relied on the bond of Elms and Bradley, for the performance of Elms's stipulation; and not upon any equitable relief which he might have against the said defendant; took no assignment of said defendant's bond to Elms, but left it with Elms, who was permitted to prosecute the suit for a title in his own name; and thirdly, that some of the said defendant's notes which he executed to Elms upon the compromise, have come to the plaintiff's hands with full knowledge of the consideration on which they were given. Testimony was offered in support of the first ground of defence; and it was read, subject to an objection on the part of the plaintiff, that...