Sessoms v. . Bazemore

104 S.E. 70, 180 N.C. 102, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 38
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 29, 1920·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

BEoice, J.

The due execution of the contract, including the privy examination of the feme defendant, is admitted in the pleadings. The tender of the purchase price within the time, and the plaintiff’s readiness and ability to perform, and the identity of the land claimed as the subject-matter of the contract are also clearly established, and the question presented and chiefly argued before us is whether the language of the written contract is sufficiently definite to permit the reception of parol evidence to fit the description to the property claimed as the subject-matter.of the contract. On that question,- the decisions‘of our Court are in full support of his Honor’s ruling in the admission of the testimony and the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed. Norton v. Smith, 179 N. C., 553; Lewis v. Murray, and authorities cited.

No error.

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

Sessoms v. . Bazemore, 104 S.E. 70, 180 N.C. 102, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 38 (N.C. 1920).

104 S.E. 70 (Sessoms v. . Bazemore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bradshaw v. McElroy
302 S.E.2d 908 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1983)
Pierce v. Gaddy
257 S.E.2d 459 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1979)
Peel v. . Calais
31 S.E.2d 440 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1944)
Stewart v. . Cary
17 S.E.2d 29 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
North Carolina Self Help Corp. v. Brinkley
2 S.E.2d 889 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)