Elliott v. . Wyatt

74 N.C. 55
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 5, 1876
StatusPublished

This text of 74 N.C. 55 (Elliott v. . Wyatt) 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
Elliott v. . Wyatt, 74 N.C. 55 (N.C. 1876).

Opinion

The suit was commenced at Fall Term, 1871, and the complaint is substantially as follows:

The plaintiff was, in 1859, the owner in fee simple of two adjoining tracts of land in Catawba County, containing about two hundred acres, and known as the White Sulphur Spring tract; the said springs and buildings being situated upon the land.

In 1859, he contracted to sell the land, springs and buildings to Horace Robards, the husband of E. J. Robards, one of the present defendants, and executed to him a bond conditioned for the execution of a deed upon the payment of the purchase money, and Robards executed his bond for the payment of the same.

About the year 1861, upon the failure of Robards to pay, the plaintiff agreed with him to rescind the contract, upon terms mutually satisfactory, and the respective bonds were surrendered and cancelled, and the plaintiff contracted to sell to Mrs. E. J. Robards, wife of said Horace, for the sum of ten thousand dollars, and executed to her a bond to make title when the purchase money should be paid, her husband being trustee.

The said Horace died in the year 1863, and after his death the defendant, E. J. Robards, in 1864, contracted to sell her interest (56) to the defendants, J. G. Wyatt and Thos. H. Wynne, composing a firm under the name of Thomas H. Wynne Co., they agreeing to pay for her interest the sum of ten thousand dollars; and on the 16th of January, 1865, they agreed, in writing, to take her contract with the plaintiff, and pay to him the purchase money which she had agreed to pay, and to make to him a bond on a credit of five years to pay the same in gold, which, with the interest for five years, amounted to ten thousand and nine hundred dollars. The plaintiff and the defendant, E. J. Robards, mutually agreed to have the land sold under a decree of a court of equity, so as to conclude their respective titles; and Wyatt and Wynne agreed, in writing, to buy the plaintiff's title at the said sum in gold, on a credit of five years, and E. J. Robard's *Page 55 title at the sum of ten thousand dollars in currency. In pursuance of said agreement the plaintiff and the defendant, E. J. Robards, joined in a petition to the court of equity for Catawba county for a sale of the said springs and land; and at Spring Term, 1865, a decree was made to sell the land, in pursuance of which the Clerk and Master sold the same on the 20th day of June, 1865, when the land was bid off for or by the defendants, Thomas H. Wynne and J. G. Wyatt, who gave their bond to pay the plaintiff, on the 20th day of June, 1870, ten thousand nine hundred dollars in gold, and also gave bond to pay the defendant, E. J. Robards, ten thousand dollars in currency, which sale was confirmed by the court at Spring Term, 1866, and no order for collection or to make title was afterwards made. The bonds were left in the hands of the Clerk and Master.

That this agreement was in writing, and that the agreement in writing and the petition and decree in equity, the sale and confirmation and the execution to the plaintiff and the defendant, E. J. Robards, of the bonds for the purchase money, together constitute a contract between the plaintiff and the defendants Wyatt and Wynne.

The defendants Wyatt and Wynne, under their contract with (57) the defendant E. J. Robards, took possession of the land and springs, and after the purchase at the sale of the Clerk and Master, they continued in possession and used and occupied the land and springs with great profit to themselves, and in August, 1868, the defendant Wynne sold and by deed conveyed to the defendant Wyatt, his interest in the land and springs, for the sum of six thousand dollars, Wyatt undertaking to pay the debt for the land and springs; and to secure Wynne, Wyatt made a deed purporting to convey the whole of said land and springs to the defendant McCarthy, in trust for the benefit of Wynne, and the defendant Wyatt has been in the sole possession of the land and springs since August, 1868, making therefrom great profits. That the deed of trust above mentioned is fraudulent as to the plaintiff.

That the report of the Clerk and Master states, that at the sale the lands were bid off by Wynne, but that the plaintiff alleges that the purchase was in fact for both Wyatt and Wynne.

That the defendants Wynne (who is insolvent) and McCarthy are not residents of this State, but reside in Virginia, and that the defendant Wyatt is notoriously insolvent.

That the plaintiff's bond became due in 1870, and no part of it has ever been paid, but that suit was brought upon it and judgment given against the defendants Wyatt and Wynne, at Spring Term, 1871, of Catawba Superior Court, and that he had issued an execution which has been levied upon some personal property of small value, in the *Page 56 possession of the defendant Wyatt, but claimed now by the defendant McCarthy, the sale of which, by an arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendant Wyatt, has been for a time postponed, and plaintiff offers to account for whatever he may actually realize therefrom.

The defendant E. J. Robards has a judgment of the same date as that of the plaintiff, and claims to be paid out of said lands in (58) the character of second mortgagee, the plaintiff being the first mortgagee, and that the defendant McCarthy claims by virtue of the deed from the defendant Wynne, to hold a third mortgage; and the plaintiff is advised that a sale of said land and springs, and the interest of the plaintiff and of all the defendant's therein is necessary to give a good title to any purchaser and conclude the several equitable and legal rights of the parties.

The complaint demanded that the defendants be decreed to specifically perform their contract with him, by paying to him the purchase money and interest, and after paying to the defendant Robards her claim, accept a deed from the clerk of the court, or some commissioner to be appointed by the court. Or that the court decree a sale of the lands by a commissioner to be named by the court, who shall sell and convey all the right, title and interest of the plaintiff and each and all of the defendants therein, on such terms as to the court may seem proper, and apply the proceeds of the sale:

1. To pay off the plaintiff, the purchase money for the legal estate in the lands.

2. To pay the defendant Robards, the owner of the equity sold by her.

3. The surplus to the defendants, or each of them, as the court may direct.

The several deeds and contracts mentioned were annexed to the complaint as a part thereof, also the petition to the Court of Equity, but it is deemed unnecessary for the same to be set forth in this statement.

The defendant J. G. Wyatt demurred to the complaint and for cause of demurrer alleged:

I. That the court has no jurisdiction of the action, because the plaintiff has a full and complete remedy by motion in the cause pending of E. O. Elliott and E. Roberts, ex parte, where the court can make an order to relieve the plaintiff.

II. The defendant sets forth a copy of the deed of trust to (59) McCarthy, which was on record when the plaintiff filed his complaint, and demurs for multifariousness, as McCarthy has no interest in the real estate in controversy. *Page 57

III. The defendant demurs because of the contract of Thos. H. Wynne Co., with the plaintiff, he (the plaintiff) was to execute a deed to the defendant, when they executed the notes to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was to receive a mortgage to secure the notes, whereas the plaintiff has never complied with the stipulation, though the defendants have executed the notes as stipulated by them.

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

Related

Walker v. . Mebane
90 N.C. 259 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1884)
Elliott v. . Robards
70 N.C. 181 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 N.C. 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-wyatt-nc-1876.