Case Name: ISAAC BROWN v. D. W. HOBBS
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1911-04-05
Citations: 154 N.C. 544
Docket Number: 
Parties: ISAAC BROWN v. D. W. HOBBS.
Judges: Justice Browjst concurs in opinion of Justice Valuer.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 154
Pages: 544–556

Head Matter:
ISAAC BROWN v. D. W. HOBBS.
(Filed 5 April, 1911.)
Judgments — Payments—Motions to Enter Satisfaction — Lands— Parol Contracts — Statute of Frauds.
Upon a motion to enter satisfaction of a judgment under Re-visa!, sec. 579, a defendant may not set up his parol executory agreement to convey lands to plaintiff for that purpose, such not being in the purview of the statute and not enforcible by him under the statute of frauds.
Ciark, C. J., and Walker, J., concurring; Brown, J., concurring in the concurring opinion of Walker, J.
Appeal by defendant from Whedbee, J., at August Term, 1910, of DupliN.
Tbis is a motion by defendant, under section 579. of tbe Ee-visal, to enter satisfaction of a judgment rendered in favor of tbe plaintiff at August Term, 1901, of tbe Superior Court of Duplin County.
Tbe defendant offered affidavits to prove tbat on 13 April, 1908, be sold to tbe plaintiff a lot in Warsaw, at tbe price of $1,600, on condition tbat said judgment should be satisfied as a part of tbe purchase price; tbat be bad tendered a deed to tbe plaintiff pursuant to tbe contract of sale, which tbe plaintiff refused to accept.
Tbe plaintiff admitted tbat be bad entered into a contract of purchase, alleged tbat tbe same was in parol, and contended tbat tbe deed tendered did not embrace all tbe land in tbe contract.
It was admitted tbat tbe contract was in parol and tbat tbe plaintiff contended tbat tbe deed tendered was not in accordance with tbe agreement.
His Honor dismissed tbe motion, and tbe defendant excepted and appealed.
F. B. Gooper. for plaintiff.
Stevens, Beasley & Weeks for defendant.

Opinion:
Allen, J.
Tbis seems to be an ingenious effort upon tbe part of counsel for defendant to enforce a parol contract in regard to land. Tbe section of tbe Eevisal (579) under -which tbe motion is made was intended to give tbe judgment debtor a speedy and inexpensive remedy when be bad made payments which tbe creditor refused to enter on tbe judgment. Tbe procedure under tbe motion is clearly stated in tbe statute.
We do not think it was -intended to embrace a controversy like tbis, growing out of an independent contract, which may be tbe subject of another action. Tbe statute says tbe remedy by motion may be-bad "when any payment has been made on any judgment."
Tbe defendant has paid nothing. On his own showing, he has entered into an entire contract, void under the statute of frauds, and the plaintiff claims that he is not willing to perform this.
We agree with his Honor that these controversies cannot be settled in this motion.
Affirmed.