Turley v. . Nowell

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Turley v. . Nowell

62 N.C. 301

DecidedJanuary 5, 1868

StatusPublished

This text of 62 N.C. 301 (Turley v. . Nowell) 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

Turley v. . Nowell, 62 N.C. 301 (N.C. 1868).

Pincite

Opinion

Pearson, C. J.

The plaintiff is entitled to a specific performance of the contract. The parties were their own judges as to the value of the property and the value of Confederate notes, and there is no allegation of fraud or imposition. Indeed the only ground on which the defendant resists the equity of the plaintiff is the fact that by the result of the war Confederate notes became of no value, but he needed such notes at the time he made the contract, accepted them in payment for the land, and must abide the loss.

That the contract was not illegal is settled, Phillips v. Hooker, ante, 193.

Per Curiam.

Decree for the plaintiff.

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

Pearson, C. J.

The plaintiff is entitled to a specific performance of the contract. The parties were their own judges as to the value of the property and the value of Confederate notes, and there is no allegation of fraud or imposition. Indeed the only ground on which the defendant resists the equity of the plaintiff is the fact that by the result of the war Confederate notes became of no value, but he needed such notes at the time he made the contract, accepted them in payment for the land, and must abide the loss.

That the contract was not illegal is settled, Phillips v. Hooker, ante, 193.

Per Curiam.

Decree for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 N.C. 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turley-v-nowell-nc-1868.