Phelps v. . Davenport

65 S.E. 459, 151 N.C. 21, 1909 N.C. LEXIS 182
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 15, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 65 S.E. 459 (Phelps v. . Davenport) 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
Phelps v. . Davenport, 65 S.E. 459, 151 N.C. 21, 1909 N.C. LEXIS 182 (N.C. 1909).

Opinion

Action for the possession of land, the right of which was denied by defendant, who alleged that the plaintiff gave him an option of purchase and wrongfully refused to comply with its terms. The defendant held an option for the purchase of the land in question. Within the time specified the defendant wrote the plaintiff a note that he elected to take the land at the price stipulated; that he was ready to pay the sum agreed on, and requested that plaintiff make a deed at once. The plaintiff told the bearer of the note that he *Page 22 would not sell the land and the law would not compel him to do so. There was no money shown or counted out. The defendant testified that he was ready that day to pay the money and had kept ever since the full amount in bank and had been at all times ready and able to pay the purchase money.

His Honor, being of opinion that there had not been a sufficient tender, instructed the jury to answer the issues, as in the record, in favor of the plaintiff. This was error. When the defendant notified the plaintiff he had made his election, was prepared to pay for the land and demanded a deed, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prepare, and tender the deed. It was not necessary that the plaintiff should then and there offer the money, as it was not payable except in exchange for the deed. If, as is not contradicted, the defendant was in fact able to make the payment at that time, and in good faith demanded the deed, it was not incumbent on him then to show or count out the money, nor was it incumbent on him to do a vain thing by offering the money after the plaintiff refused to make the deed.Hughes v. Knott, 138 N.C. 105.

New trial.

Cited: Gallimore v. Grubbs, 156 N.C. 577.

(23)

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

Related

Kidd v. Early
222 S.E.2d 392 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1976)
Penny v. Nowell
56 S.E.2d 428 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Frazelle
40 S.E.2d 367 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)
Crotts v. . Thomas
38 S.E.2d 158 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)
Shull v. Lawrence
186 P. 246 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 S.E. 459, 151 N.C. 21, 1909 N.C. LEXIS 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phelps-v-davenport-nc-1909.