Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-12-03
.CGUnT DECISIONS. !
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest 70
Our People.
DlGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
Exclusively for virrlnian Pllot)
PASS v. BROOKS.


Supreme Court of North Carolina.
October 81, 1899.
EQUITY WILL NOT COMPEL A
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A
PARoL CONTRACT TO CONVEY
LANDS. EVEN THOUGH THE
PURCHASER HAS PAID THE
PURCHASE MONEY AND ENTER
ED INTO POSSESSION.
IN SUCH CASE POSSESSION WILL
NOT TO BE AWARDED THE VEN
DOR UNLESS HE REPAYS THE
PURCHASE PRICE AND THE
VALUE OF ANY IMPROVEMENTS
MADE BY THE VENDEE.
THE VENDOR CANNOT HAVE
RENT WHERE THE PURCHASER
DOES NOT CLAIM INTEREST ON
THE PURCHASE PRICE.
There was Judgment for plaintiff i'm
the lower court and defendant appealed
The court says:
The contract not having been reduced
TO writing, and signed by the plaintiff,
ana the statute of frauds being pleaded
the court Will not enforce Il specific per-
Torrance of the contract, and compel
having the title to the lot, is entitled 10
judgment for possession But as IL is
admitted that the p.aintiT sold this LOT
TO John L. Brooks. the father Of the
infant defendants, for $50. and the iury
having found that the said John II.
ll5rooks paid the plaintiff $50 for the lot
before his death, and the jury having
further found that the said John r.,
Brooks, before his death, placed i'm
proVemcnts buildings to the value OF
Sl2o on the lot, and that he ana deren-
uants having been in possession ever
since the law will not allow the plain
tilf to take possession of the lot with
out repaying the purchase money so
PAD TO him, and without also paying
Tor the valuable improvements put on
the lot, by reason of said parol contract
this would be unjust and ineouitnble
me PLAINTIFF cannot deprive the dcfen-
rants of the benefit or their improve
ments by repudnting his contract. AS
to whether the defendants should have
interest on the 500, or the PLAINTIFF
should have rent, are matters of euuit-
aple adjustment. If the plaintiff is al
lowed rent. 1t must be only what the
lot would have rented for in its I'M
improved condition. 1t cannot be euuit-
able and just that the plaintiff should
nave rent for the buildings he had in
duced the defendants to nut upon the
lou by repudiating his contract. If this
were so. 1t would enable the plaintiff
to do the inequitable and unjust thing
of getting rent for improvements put
there by the defendant, and which had
never cost the plaintiff one cent. Equity
Will not allow the preparation of such
wrong. The plaintiff has the $50. the
value of the lot unimproved The de-
PENDANTS have had the use of the un-
improved lot. The defendants do not
claim interest on the $50, and equity viii.
set off the one against the other; that
IS. the defendants are not entitled to
interest on the $50. nor Is the plaintiff
allowed rent on his vacant lot. There
fore Judgment should be entered de-
claring that the plaintiff is the owner
OF the lot in controversy; but that he
is not entitled TO a writ OF possession
therefor until he pays into the clerks
Office for the benefit of the defendant
$l64; this being the amount OF the pur
chase money and the value of the per-
manent improvements. Upon this op-
inion being certified to the court below
Judgment will be so entered. Judg.
ment modified.