Pope v. . McPhailPope v. . McPhail
Tbe evidence on tbe part of tbe plaintiff tended tо show that in July, 1911, defendant entered into an oral contract with plaintiff to sell tbe latter a tract of land in Sampson County, N. C., of 640 acres, sufficiently designated and describеd, for tbe sum of $7,000, to be evidenced by plaintiff’s notes, onе for $2,500, due 1 September, 1911, and a second note for $4,500, due 1 December, 1912, and that, pursuant to said verbal contrаct, defendant and wife prepared and signed a dеed for tbe property and for tbe consideration stated, which was duly probated, purporting to convey the said land to plaintiff, and plaintiff and wife executed promissory notes due and a mortgage on tbe land to secure tbe same, and these papers, with a mеmorandum in writing also signed by tbe parties, were delivered tо tbe Bank of Clinton, N. C., to bold in escrow until defendant could sеcure a complete title to tbe land which be wаs selling, tbe memorandum referred to being to tbe effeсt that tbe papers should be held in escrow, etc.; that in violation of tbe contract defendant McPbail took tbe papers from tbe Bank of Clinton or in some wаy procured tbe same, and having destroyed bis deed, sold and conveyed tbe land to a third party at an advаnce price of $1,900, tbe purchaser now bolding the lаnd under a deed duly registered. Upon this testimony tbe motion fоr nonsuit was properly overruled, and, tbe jury having found the sаme to be true, plaintiff has a clear right of action. While there is much authority to the contrary, it is tbe rule in this jurisdiction that when parties, having entered into an oral cоntract to sell land, prepare and
*240
sign a written deеd substantially expressing tbe bargain, and deliver the same in escrow, such a deed is a sufficient “memorandum” within the -meаning and requirement of our statute of frauds, and the contract may be considered and dealt with as a valid and binding agreement.
We
so held at the present term, in
Vinson v. Pugh,
p. 190, As
sociate Justice Brown
delivering the opinion, and
Flowe v. Hartwick,
There is no error, and judgment in plaintiff’s favor is affirmed.
No error.