Page 374 |
Previous | 374 of 842 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
350 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS t-15
Hoots v. Calaway
Hoots gave Calaway his check for $30,000 payable to H. R.
and Alice Calaway. They then discussed the personal property
involved in the transaction and agreed to meet at Calaway's
office "as soon as the papers could be drawn up." They did so
meet, with all parties present, and the plaintiffs executed the
notes and deed of trust, and defendant executed and delivered
a deed conveying to plaintiffs 400 acres, "more or less." The
deed, deed of trust and notes all were dated 2 July 1968. At the
same time, the parties signed a contract with respect to some of
the personal property involved in the transaction. Some eleven
months later Hoots had the farm surveyed, and the survey
revealed that there was a deficiency in acreage of 42 acres.
Plaintiff testified the memo of the transaction was not intended
to contain the entire agreement and did not contain the entire
agreement.
Defendant's evidence tended to show that there was no
per acre agreement and no agreement to refund. Both Calaway
and his son testified that the memorandum prepared by the
son did not and was not intended to contain the entire trans-action
but was for the purpose of binding Calaway and assisting
the son in the drafting of instruments to close the transaction.
Defendant's evidence tended to show that Hoots was given
maps of the property and was taken over the property to see
the lines; that the surveys he had made revealed over 400
acres in the two farms. Robertson testified he did not hear
any conversation with respect to acreage. Calaway testified he
agreed to sell the land for $110,000 and no per acre discussion
was had.
On appeal defendant appellees contend that the court's
rulings were correct because the evidence with respect to a per
acre agreement and refund for shortage of acreage on a per
acre basis was not admissible in violation of the par01 evidence
rule, and plaintiffs are bound by the written memorandum
accepted by Hoots and kept by him for some eleven months
without requesting any change in it. This appears to be the
view of the trial judge. In allowing the defendant's motion the
court said:
"Gentlemen, as you may know, at the end of the evidence
in this case I was tempted to direct a verdict, but we had
so much time and energy invested in the case I wanted to
submit the case to the jury in the event it would be er-
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.015, Spring Session 1972] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1973 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 15, Spring Session 1972. Cited as 15 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
| Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Reports; Legal documents |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 36 MB; 842 p. |
| Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
| Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_015.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 374 |
| Full Text | 350 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS t-15 Hoots v. Calaway Hoots gave Calaway his check for $30,000 payable to H. R. and Alice Calaway. They then discussed the personal property involved in the transaction and agreed to meet at Calaway's office "as soon as the papers could be drawn up." They did so meet, with all parties present, and the plaintiffs executed the notes and deed of trust, and defendant executed and delivered a deed conveying to plaintiffs 400 acres, "more or less." The deed, deed of trust and notes all were dated 2 July 1968. At the same time, the parties signed a contract with respect to some of the personal property involved in the transaction. Some eleven months later Hoots had the farm surveyed, and the survey revealed that there was a deficiency in acreage of 42 acres. Plaintiff testified the memo of the transaction was not intended to contain the entire agreement and did not contain the entire agreement. Defendant's evidence tended to show that there was no per acre agreement and no agreement to refund. Both Calaway and his son testified that the memorandum prepared by the son did not and was not intended to contain the entire trans-action but was for the purpose of binding Calaway and assisting the son in the drafting of instruments to close the transaction. Defendant's evidence tended to show that Hoots was given maps of the property and was taken over the property to see the lines; that the surveys he had made revealed over 400 acres in the two farms. Robertson testified he did not hear any conversation with respect to acreage. Calaway testified he agreed to sell the land for $110,000 and no per acre discussion was had. On appeal defendant appellees contend that the court's rulings were correct because the evidence with respect to a per acre agreement and refund for shortage of acreage on a per acre basis was not admissible in violation of the par01 evidence rule, and plaintiffs are bound by the written memorandum accepted by Hoots and kept by him for some eleven months without requesting any change in it. This appears to be the view of the trial judge. In allowing the defendant's motion the court said: "Gentlemen, as you may know, at the end of the evidence in this case I was tempted to direct a verdict, but we had so much time and energy invested in the case I wanted to submit the case to the jury in the event it would be er- |
