Hagood v. . Holland

106 S.E. 154, 181 N.C. 64, 1921 N.C. LEXIS 17

Opinion

Stacy, J.

Under authority of Abbott v. Hunt, 129 N. C., 403, and Real Estate Co. v. Sasser, 179 N. C., 497, we think his Honor should have submitted to the jury an issue on the defendant’s alleged revocation of the contract. The Sasser case is on all-fours with the case at bar— the two being identical in principle — and what is said there need not be repeated here. We consider the above cases controlling authorities.

We think the court also erred in permitting the plaintiff to testify to the effect that he had paid his copartner the sum of $1,000 for his interest in the contract. In no event could this be considered as a proper item in assessing the plaintiff’s damages. It was not money expended in an effort to secure a purchaser; nor was it any loss of profits within the rule applicable to such loss. Plaintiff purchased the entire contract subject to the defendants’ right of revocation; and such a purchase was not within the contemplation of the parties at the time of its execution. This would take the amount thus expended out of the category of recoverable damages.

The remaining exceptions need not be considered, as the questions presented by them may not arise upon another hearing.

New trial.