Willis v. Willis
JOHN A. WILLIS and Wife, NORA WILLIS, v. HENRY WILLIS
Opinion
Per Cueiam.
The determinative issue, whether defendant agreed to pay plaintiffs for the two lots as alleged, was resolved by the jury in plaintiffs’ favor. Parol evidence was competent to show the actual consideration for the deed.
Pate v. Gaitley, 183 N.C. 262 , 111 S.E. 339 . The statute of frauds, G.S. 22-2, does not apply to an executed contract, such as that here involved.
Keith Bros. v. Kennedy, 194 N.C. 784 , 140 S.E. 721 ;
Baucom v. Bank, 203 N.C. 825 , 167 S.E. 72 . We find no prejudicial error in the conduct of the trial.
No error.
WinboRNE and Higgins, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.