Arnold v. Hicks

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Arnold v. Hicks

38 N.C. 17

DecidedDecember 15, 1842

StatusPublished

This text of 38 N.C. 17 (Arnold v. Hicks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arnold v. Hicks, 38 N.C. 17 (N.C. 1842).

Pincite

Opinion

Ruffin, C. J.

The proofs do not establish any distinct agreement, respecting the conveyance of the land by the Glerk and Master. It rather appears, that there was a con[19]*19versation, that the purchase should be made for these two parties jointly. But it does not appear clearly, that even that was concluded on; and if it had been, it is a different contract from that stated in the bill, and could not be enforced in this proceeding. But, although the court cannot decree a conveyance to the plaintiff, upon the footing of an aa'ree nent to that effect, yet he is entitled to have a re-sale of the premises, unless the defendant shall, within a reasonable period, pay the debt, interest and costs. Green v Crockett, 2 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 390. There must accordingly be an account ordered of what is due to the plaintiff in the premises, and a declaration that he is entitled to have the same raised out of the land by a sale.

Per Curiam, Reference ordered.

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

Ruffin, C. J.

The proofs do not establish any distinct agreement, respecting the conveyance of the land by the Glerk and Master. It rather appears, that there was a con[19]*19versation, that the purchase should be made for these two parties jointly. But it does not appear clearly, that even that was concluded on; and if it had been, it is a different contract from that stated in the bill, and could not be enforced in this proceeding. But, although the court cannot decree a conveyance to the plaintiff, upon the footing of an aa'ree nent to that effect, yet he is entitled to have a re-sale of the premises, unless the defendant shall, within a reasonable period, pay the debt, interest and costs. Green v Crockett, 2 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 390. There must accordingly be an account ordered of what is due to the plaintiff in the premises, and a declaration that he is entitled to have the same raised out of the land by a sale.

Per Curiam, Reference ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 N.C. 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-hicks-nc-1842.