Sammax Investment Co. v. Zindel
Sammax Investment Company v. M. K. Zindel and Zindel Baking Company.
Opinion of the Court
Stacy, O. J.
The lease of the building resting, as 'it does, in parol and being for a term of three years, to commence in the future; and not from the making of the contract, is void under our statute of frauds.
Mauney v. Norvell, 179 N. C., 628 , 103 S. E., 372 .
It is provided by C. S., 988, that all leases and contracts for leasing lands “exceeding in duration three years from the making thereof,” shall be void, unless said leases or contracts, or some memorandum or note thereof, be put in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or by some other person by him thereto lawfully authorized. Thus it would seem that a parol lease of lands for the full term of three years, to take effect in the future, and not from the making of the contract, necessarily falls within the purview of the statute, or else such a lease would be valid no matter at what time in the future it took effect, and if one such lease could be made, ,a¡ succession of them might be made, and the protection of the statute would thus be lost, so far as purchasers and others are concerned. This was the holding in Mauney’s case, supra.
The defendants having denied the lease as alleged, or that any contract whatsoever existed between the parties, were entitled to the benefit of the statute, and it was error to deny them this right.
Henry v. Hilliard, 155 N. C., 372 , 71 S. E., 439 .
New trial.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.