Weant v. McCanless

70 S.E.2d 196, 235 N.C. 384, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 414

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: April 9, 1952
• Docket: 378
• Status: Published

Opinion

DenNY, J.

A motion to strike a further defense, cross-action and counterclaim should not be allowed if tbe facts pleaded therein may be proven by competent evidence, and if so proven, such facts would constitute a defense in whole or in part to the affirmative relief sought in the complaint. Williams v. Thompson, 227 N.C. 166, 41 S.E. 2d 359.

The test as to whether pleadings are relevant, on a motion to strike, is whether the pleader would be entitled to introduce evidence in support of the allegations sought to be stricken. Williams v. Thompson, supra; Trust Co. v. Dunlop, 214 N.C. 196, 198 S.E. 645; Patterson v. R. R., 214 N.C. 38, 198 S.E. 364; Pemberton v. Greensboro, 203 N.C. 514, 166 S.E. 396.

A parol contract to sell or convey land may be enforced, unless the party to be charged takes advantage of the statute of frauds by pleading it, or by denial of the contract, as alleged, which is equivalent to a plea of the statute. G.S. 22-2; Allison v. Steele, 220 N.C. 318, 17 S.E. 2d 339; Real Estate Co. v. Fowler, 191 N.C. 616, 132 S.E. 575; McCall v. Institute, 189 N.C. 775, 128 S.E. 349; Geitner v. Jones, 176 N.C. 542, 97 S.E. 494; Arps v. Davenport, 183 N.C. 72, 110 S.E. 580; Herndon v. R. R., 161 N.C. 650, 77 S.E. 683; Henry v. Hilliard, 155 N.C. 372, 71 S.E. 439; Miller v. Monazite Co., 152 N.C. 608, 68 S.E. 1.

It is settled in this jurisdiction that the provisions of the statute of frauds cannot be taken advantage of by demurrer. McCampbell v. Building & Loan Asso., 231 N.C. 647, 58 S.E. 2d 617; Embler v. Embler, 224 N.C. 811, 32 S.E. 2d 619; Real Estate Co. v. Fowler, supra; Stephens v. Midyette, 161 N.C. 323, 77 S.E. 243; Hemmings v. Doss, 125 N.C. 400, 34 S.E. 511. Neither can such defense be taken advantage of by motion to strike. Such defense can only he raised by answer or reply. The statute of frauds may be taken advantage of in any one of three ways: (1) The contract may be admitted and the statute pleaded as a bar to its enforcement. Bonham v. Craig, 80 N.C. 224; Holler v. Richards, 102 N.C. 545, 9 S.E. 460; Browning v. Berry, 107 N.C. 231, 12 S.E. 195, 10 L.R.A. 726; Vann v. Newsom, 110 N.C. 122, 14 S.E. 519; Jordan v. Furnace Co., 126 N.C. 143, 35 S.E. 247; Henry v. Hilliard, supra; (2) the contract, as alleged, may be denied and the statute pleaded, and in such case if it “develops on the trial that the contract is in parol, it must be declared invalid.” Embler v. Embler, supra; Jamerson v. Logan, 228 N.C. 540, 46 S.E. 2d 561, 15 A.L.R. 2d 1325; Balentine v. Gill, 218 N.C. 496, 11 S.E. 2d 456; Kluttz v. Allison, 214 N.C. 379, 199 S.E. 395; Winders v. Hill, 144 N.C. 614, 57 S.E. 456; Morrison v. Baker, 81 N.C. 76; or, (3) the party to be charged may enter a general denial without pleading the statute, and on the trial object to the admission of parol testimony to prove the contract. Henry v. Hilliard, supra; Price v. Askins, 212 N.C. 583, 194 S.E. 284; Allison v. Steele, supra; Embler v. Embler, supra; Jamerson v. Logan, supra.

For the reasons stated, the ruling of the court below must be

Reversed.