Albea v. Griffin

22 N.C. 9
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 15, 1838·Published·Cited by 32 cases

Opinion

Gaston, Judge,

after stating the facts as above, proceed[10] ed: — It is objected on the part of the defendants that by our act of 1819 all parol contracts to convey land are void, and 110 Part performance can, in this State, take a parol contract out of the operation of that statute. We admit this objection to be well founded, and we hold as a consequence from it that the contract being void, not only its specific performance cannot be enforced, but that no action will lie in law or equity for damages because of non-performance. But we are nevertheless of opinion that the plaintiff has an equity which entitles him to relief, and that parol evidence is admissible for the purpose of shewing that equity. The plaintiff’s labour and money have been expended on improving property which the ancestor of the defendants encouraged him to expect should become his own, and by the act of God, or by the caprice of the defendants, this expectation has been frustrated. The consequence is a loss to him and a gain to them. — It is against conscience that they should be enriched by gains thus acquired to his injury. (Baker and Wife v. Carson, 1 Dev, and Bat. Eq. Rep. 381.) If they repudiate the contract, which they have a right to do, they must not take the improved property from the plaintiff without compensation for the additional value which these improvements have conferred upon the property.

The Court therefore directs that it be referred to the Clerk of this court, to enquire and report what is the additional value conferred on the land in question by the improvements of the plaintiff, and that he state an account between the parties, charging the plaintiff with a fair rent since the death of Andrew Griffin, and crediting him with what has been advanced towards payment for said land, and with the amount of the additional value so conferred upon it.

Per Curiam. Decree accordingly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Albea v. Griffin, 22 N.C. 9 (N.C. 1838).

22 N.C. 9 (Albea v. Griffin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pamlico County v. Davis
107 S.E.2d 306 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)
Board of Com'rs of Roxboro v. Bumpass
74 S.E.2d 436 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
Duckett v. Harrison
69 S.E.2d 176 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Rochlin v. P. S. West Construction Co.
67 S.E.2d 464 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)
Grantham v. . Grantham
171 S.E. 331 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Eaton v. . Doub
128 S.E. 494 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Gray v. . Davis
113 S.E. 597 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1922)
Perry v. Martha A.
109 S.E. 641 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)
Carter v. . Carter
108 S.E. 765 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)
Mauney v. . Norvell
103 S.E. 372 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1920)
Deal v. . Wilson
101 S.E. 205 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1919)
Ferrell v. Ormand Mining Co.
97 S.E. 386 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1918)
Ballard v. . Boyette
86 S.E. 175 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1915)
Faircloth v. . Kenlaw
81 S.E. 299 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)
Rexford v. Southern Woodland Co.
208 F. 295 (D. South Carolina, 1913)
Jones v. . Sandlin
75 S.E. 1075 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1912)
Joyner v. . Joyner
65 S.E. 896 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
Ford v. . Stroud
64 S.E. 1 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
Wilmington v. Bryan
141 N.C. 666 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)
Wood v. Tinsley.
51 S.E. 59 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)