42 S.E.2d 218 | N.C. | 1947
Civil action to recover damages for procuring the breach of contract to sell timber — heard upon demurrer to complaint.
Plaintiff alleges in his complaint, in brief, these facts:
That Walter P. Stallings and his wife, being the owners of a certain tract of land in Johnston County, North Carolina, executed a written contract, dated 22 March, 1944, and duly registered in Johnston County on 24 March, 1944, by the terms of which they agreed to sell and convey by deed to plaintiff certain timber on said land; that Stallings and his wife failed and refused to deliver deed and to carry out said contract, but instead sold and conveyed said timber to defendants who have cut and removed same from said land, to the damage of plaintiff; that defendants had both constructive and actual notice that plaintiff had contracted to buy said timber; that notwithstanding such notice defendants "did wrongfully, unlawfully and maliciously persuade the said Walter P. Stallings and his wife . . . to breach their contract and to sell the timber to the said defendants"; that "such interference was the direct and proximate cause of the damage suffered by the plaintiff . . ."
Defendants demurred to the complaint for that the facts alleged do not constitute a cause of action against defendants in favor of plaintiff, and for that there is no allegation that defendants made any false or fraudulent representations to plaintiff or breached any contract with plaintiff. *341
The court, being of opinion that the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants, overruled the demurrer.
From judgment in accordance therewith, defendants appeal to Supreme Court and assign error. The sole question here is as to the correctness of the action of the judge of Superior Court in overruling the demurrer to the complaint. In the light of appropriate procedure and applicable principles of law, we have opinion accordant with the ruling.
"The office of demurrer is to test the sufficiency of a pleading, admitting for the purpose the truth of the allegations of fact contained therein, and ordinarily relevant inferences of fact necessarily deducible therefrom are also admitted . . ." Ballinger v. Thomas,
The applicable principle of law is appropriately stated in Elvington v.Shingle Co.,
In this connection in the present case these principles are pertinent: Standing timber is a part of the realty. Drake v. Howell,
Applying these principles to the case in hand, the complaint alleges facts tending to show the existence of a valid duly registered contract between plaintiff and Walter P. Stallings and wife for the sale and conveyance by them to him of certain timber, and that defendants, third parties, with both constructive and actual notice, "did wrongfully, unlawfully and maliciously persuade the said Walter P. Stallings and his wife . . . to breach their contract and to sell the timber to the said defendants," and that "such interference was the direct and proximate cause of damage suffered by the plaintiff." These allegations in the light of the above principles of law are sufficient to state a cause of action.
Furthermore, while the question of the sufficiency of the pleading for the recovery of punitive damages is not debated in this Court, we call attention to these cases: Richardson v. R. R.,
The judgment below is
Affirmed.