Sessoms v. Bazemore

J. D. SESSOMS Et Al. v. A. G. BAZEMORE and Wife, SYDNEY

Sessoms v. Bazemore, 104 S.E. 70 (N.C. 1920)

Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided: September 29, 1920
Judges: BEoice
Citations: 104 S.E. 70180 N.C. 1021920 N.C. LEXIS 38

Cited by 5

Headnotes

Contract— Option — Description of Band — Evidence — Identification — Equity — Specific Performance. An option to sell the owner’s only farm, described therein as “my farm,” for a certain price, within a specified time upon the payment of the sum named, sufficiently describes the land to admit of parol evidence of identification of the subject-matter of the contract, in an action for specific performance by the purchaser.

Summary

Civil actioN, tried before Devin, J., at April Term, 1920, of Hebt-eobd. The action is for specific performance of a written contract to convey land, duly executed by defendant and bis wife, tbe pertinent portions of said contract being in terms as follows: “I do hereby agree to sell my farm to Mr. J. D. Sessoms for $7,000 any time within 30 days. This the 3d day of October, 1917. If he pays me the money, me and my wife will make him a deed, or to whom he may direct. A. GL Bazemobe. . “ SydNEV Bazemobe.” On the issues presented in the pleadings, there was verdict for plaintiff. Judgment, and defendants excepted and appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — BEoice

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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Bradshaw v. McElroy302 S.E.2d 908 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983)
North Carolina Self Help Corp. v. Brinkley2 S.E.2d 889 (N.C. 1939)
Stewart v. Cary17 S.E.2d 29 (N.C. 1941)
Peel v. Calais31 S.E.2d 440 (N.C. 1944)
Pierce v. Gaddy257 S.E.2d 459 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979)

Most recent

Bradshaw v. McElroy302 S.E.2d 908 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983)
Pierce v. Gaddy257 S.E.2d 459 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979)
Peel v. Calais31 S.E.2d 440 (N.C. 1944)
Stewart v. Cary17 S.E.2d 29 (N.C. 1941)
North Carolina Self Help Corp. v. Brinkley2 S.E.2d 889 (N.C. 1939)

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.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Norton v. Smith, 103 S.E. 14 (N.C. 1920)	18

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list