Henry v. Shore

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Henry v. Shore

197 S.E.2d 270, 18 N.C. App. 463, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1903

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJune 13, 1973

Docket7320SC262

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 197 S.E.2d 270 (Henry v. Shore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Henry v. Shore, 197 S.E.2d 270, 18 N.C. App. 463, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1903 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

There was no error in dismissing this action as to all defendants. The summary judgment in favor of Shore was correct for that there was no contract in writing pertaining to the conveyance of the realty as required by North Carolina General Statutes 22-2. “A wholly unexecuted parol contract to sell land is void.” Riggs v. Anderson, 260 N.C. 221, 132 S.E. 2d 312 (1963).

With regard to the Talberts, Miller, and the Savings and Loan Association, the North Carolina registration statute, G.S. 47-18, is controlling. Bruton v. Smith, 225 N.C. 584, 36 S.E. 2d 9 (1945); Eller v. Arnold, 230 N.C. 418, 53 S.E. 2d 266 (1949).

Affirmed.

Judges Morris and Parker concur.

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