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

Court of Appeals of North Carolina·Decided June 13, 1973·No. 7320SC262·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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.

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

197 S.E.2d 270 (Henry v. Shore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related