{
  "id": 8657818,
  "name": "DOWDY v. WHITE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dowdy v. White",
  "decision_date": "1901-03-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "17",
  "last_page": "21",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "128 N.C. 17"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 397,
    "char_count": 7443,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.416,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0882832212791736e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5650072649023167
    },
    "sha256": "b5332d76df5d81805c1960b7aed3a0ad4c66ce5d972cd6c745d611ed8a23d7e8",
    "simhash": "1:ad0736f3bc7af6b7",
    "word_count": 1367
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:14.013877+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DOWDY v. WHITE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Montgomery, J.\nThis action was brought to recover from the defendant damages for an alleged breach of a written contract on the part of the testator of the defendant to convey to the plaintiff the tract of land described- in the complaint. The contract does not consist of one paper-writing, but is alleged to be embraced in a correspondence containing numerous letters between plaintiff and the defendant\u2019s- testator. The first letter, dated April 1, 1898, was from the plaintiff, in which he inquired of the defendant\u2019s testator the very lowest figure that would buy the land. The defendant\u2019s testator answered that letter four days later, writing that he would take $75 for the 33 acres, and further that \u201cthat is less than $2.50 per acre and is very cheap. Were it not so far from me, I would not sell it at that. Would make you a deed at any time you may set.\u201d Four days afterwards, the plaintiff replied that he would take the land at the defendant\u2019s testator\u2019s pricey and that in a few days he would place the money in bank subject to the defendant\u2019s testator\u2019s order to be paid upon the delivery of the deed. The plaintiff further wrote in the reply that he had heard conflicting reports about the acreage and title, and requested the testator to let him know by return mail, and concluded the letter as follows: \u201cI am a poor man, and can not afford to lose or have a lawsuit. You understand that of course you consider it sold, and I will have the money ready in a short time.\u201d The testator in rejoinder two days afterwards (April 14, 1898), gave an abstract of the title and averred that there were 33 acres in the tract; and closed by saying, \u201cLet me know and I will make you a deed at any time, so you do not wait too long.\u201d A week later the plaintiff wrote to the defendant\u2019s testator that he ivas satisfied about the matter, and would take the land at the price agreed on; that he did not have the money on hand at present, and asked defendant to wait, on him ten or fifteen days; that he hoped the defendant would indulge him that much and not let anyone else have the land until he should be heard from again. Ten days afterwards (May 2d), tbe plaintiff wrote to tbe defendant\u2019s testator as follows: \u201cNew Bern, N. C., May 2, 1898, Hon. E. A. White. Sir: \u2014 I have acted under Mr. Pop\u2019es instructions and deposited tbe mloney in tbe Farmers & Merchants Bank of New Bern. You can send tbe deed and get tbe money at any time you see fit. I would like to have it as soon as possible. I send herewith a receipt from the bank. Yours, etc., D. W. Dowdy.\u201d\nOn May 7, the defendant\u2019s testator wrote the plaintiff a letter in the following words: \u201cBelvidere, N. C., May 7, 1898. Mr. D. W. Dowdy, New Bern, N. C. Dear Sir:\u2014 Am in receipt of your favor of 2d inst-., with Mr. J. W. Biddle\u2019s receipt for $7 5 to be paid me upon delivery of deed by me to you. This receipt is a mere personal receipt, and not a receipt by the bank, as you seem to think. In looking over the correspondence, I find that it has been a month or thereabout since I offered to take $75 for the land. If you had -at once placed the money in bank and called for a deed, I should have felt in honor bound to have made it. As you did not do this, you will have to excuse me, and let me see if I can not do much better than what you offer. I leam that there is some improvements going on in. and around New Bern that will make my land more valuable. This I knew nothing about until within the last few days. I want to investigate the matter before I make a deed to any one. Respectfully, E. A. White.\u201d\nThe receipt was returned by defendant\u2019s testator to the plaintiff on May 20th. It contained a recital that the purchase-money ($75) had been placed with the teller of the bank for the payment of the land, and the teller testified that the money was kept as other moneys of the bank were kept, but separate to itself, and was to be paid out on the delivery of the deed, and that the money would \u2019have been paid out on delivery of tbe deed whether the teller had been there or not; that if plaintiff had called for the money, he thinks he would have given it to him.\nThe first issue submitted to the jury was: \u201cDid the defendant\u2019s testator E. A. White contract as alleged in the complaint to convey to the plaintiff the land referred to and described in the complaint ? And the second issue was, \u201cWas there a breach of said contract on the part of the defendant\u2019s said testator f\u2019\nThe defendant requested the Court to instruct the jury that if they believed the evidence they should answer the first and second issues \u201cNo.\u201d His Honor declined to give the defendant\u2019s instructions, but charged the jury that if they believed the evidence they should answer the first and second issues \u201cYes.\u201d\nThere was no error in the refusal of the Court to give the instructions requested by the defendant, and the instructions which he.did give were correct. If it be conceded that the letter written by the plaintiff to the defendant on the 12th of April was a conditional acceptance by the plaintiff of the defendant\u2019s testator\u2019s offer to sell, certainly the letter of the testator to the plaintiff of April 14th, and the answer thereto by the plaintiff of April 21st, made the contract complete\u2014 the offer certain and the acceptance certain. Up to the writing of those last two letters, whatever difficulties had been in the way had been adjusted and satisfactorily settled. After-wards the defendant\u2019s testator said, \u201cLet me know and I will make you a deed at any time, so you don\u2019t wait too long.\u201d Within the time agreed upon by the plaintiff the money had been deposited in bank by the plaintiff and the receipt therefor sent to the defendant\u2019s testator. Between the time of the plaintiff\u2019s letter to the defendant\u2019s testator asking for ten or fifteen days in which to raise the money, and the second of May, when 'the receipt for the deposit was sent by the plaintiff to the testator, the testator made no dissent to the time desired by the plaintiff to raise the money because of its unreasonableness, or for any other cause; and the defendant\u2019s testator retained the recipt 18 days. The testimony of Biddle, the teller, tended to show that the purchase-monpy had been deposited in the bank on the 2d of May, and that it was ready to be paid out on the delivery of the deed.\nThere is nothing in the correspondence on the part of the defendant\u2019s testator to show that time was of the essence of the contract \u2014 \u201cSo you do not wait too long\u201d was all that was required. The plaintiff delayed only ten or twelve days after notifying the defendant\u2019s testator of his wish for that much delay, which was altogether reasonable.\nThe correspondence of the testator after the 14th of April did not concern the contract, but was merely an excuse for the non-performance of his part of the contract.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Montgomery, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "O. EL. Gui\u00f3nfor the plaintiff.",
      "D. L. Ward and Simmons & Ward, for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DOWDY v. WHITE.\n(Filed March 12, 1901.)\nVENDOR AND PURCHASER \u2014 Breach of Contract \u2014 Evidence\u2014Sufficiency.\nThe facts in this case held sufficient to constitute a contract to sell -the land and that there was a breach thereof by the defendant.\nAotioN by D. W. Dowdy against E. A. White, Emma White and Rufus White, executors of E. A. White, deceased, heard by Judge A. L. Goble and a jury, at November Term, 1900, of Craven County Superior Court. From judgment for plaintiff, the defendants appealed.\nO. EL. Gui\u00f3nfor the plaintiff.\nD. L. Ward and Simmons & Ward, for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0017-01",
  "first_page_order": 53,
  "last_page_order": 57
}