Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

151 N.C. 460

Stern v. Benbow

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 15, 1909

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1909-12-15

<p>1. Deeds and Conveyances — Contracts to Convey Lands — Guarantee of Number of Acres — Parol Evidence.</p> <p>In an action to reform a written contract to convey land in conformity with an alleged guarantee of the vendor that the tract contained a certain number of acres, which, in fact, it did not contain, it is not necessary that the guarantee be in writing. The requirement imposed in this case, by the trial judge, that plaintiff show that defendant had omitted the guarantee from the written instrument, was not to defendant’s prejudice and therefore not reversible error.</p> <p>2. Deeds and Conveyances — Contracts to Convey Lands — Guarantee of Number of Acres — Option of Grantee — Remedy—Measure of Damages.</p> <p>When plaintiff has alleged and proven that the defendant had guaranteed that a certain tract of land, the subject of a written contract to convey between them, contained a hundred acres, and in fact, that it contained something less than eighty acres, it is optional with him to cancel the contract or take a deed for the land with a pro rata abatement in the price. In the latter case he may recover such damages arising from the loss of rents and profits he may have sustained as the proximate and direct result of having been wrongfully kept from the possession, less the interest on the unpaid balance of the purchase price.</p> <p>3. Same — Actual Damages — Rents and Profits.</p> <p>Plaintiff having established by the verdict of the jury, under competent evidence and correct instructions of law, that a contract to convey lands made with him by defendant should be reformed so as to include a guarantee that it contained one hundred acres, and that in fact it contained less than eighty acres, and also, certain loss of rents and profits by reason of his having been wrongfully kept from possession, he is entitled to a judgment that defendant hold the lands as a security for the balance of the purchase price due, with interest thereon, ascertained by deducting from the purchase price the amount thereof theretofore paid, and such damages as directly and proximately resulted to plaintiff by the wrongful withholding of the possession by the defendant.</p> <p>4. Deeds and Conveyances — Contracts to Convey Lands — Breach— Damages Remote.</p> <p>The plaintiff cannot recover of the defendant, as damages for unlawfully withholding possession of certain lands he had contracted to convey, the expense of moving his son and family from an adjoining State and boarding them during the time the possession had thus been withheld, such damages being too remote.</p> <p>5. Issues, Inconsistent — Verdict—Judgment.</p> <p>The exception by appellant to a judgment rendered on the verdict in favor of appellee, on the ground of inconsistent issues, cannot be sustained when it appears that appellee was entitled to his verdict on the answer of the jury as to each.</p> <p>Manning, J., dissents.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1909-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 1989

1 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

50190919101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

MANNING, J.,

¶1dissenting: Concurring with tbe conclusion reached by tbe Court, tbat a partial new trial should be bad, I regret tbat I cannot agree with them in tbe conclusion reached *465in tbe disposition of tbe principal questions presented by tbe appeal. In my opinion, tbe option giving tbe plaintiff thirty days to determine bis acceptance or rejection, it, wben accepted, became tbe contract and embodied all its terms, and it was not permissible to add to or vary its terms. If tbis were permitted, non constat, tbat' tbe defendant would bave made sucb a proposition.

/151/nc/460 · .json · Public domain