{
  "id": 8656941,
  "name": "J. D. HALL v. H. C. JONES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hall v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1913-12-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "199",
  "last_page": "201",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "164 N.C. 199"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "56 Wis., 100",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wis.",
      "case_ids": [
        8703291
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wis/56/0100-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 Wis., 474",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wis.",
      "case_ids": [
        11286256
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wis/21/0474-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Am. Rep., 372",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "Am. Rep.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 N. C., 376",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657604
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/143/0376-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 298,
    "char_count": 3651,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.463,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.824970126958123e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5334187437182631
    },
    "sha256": "a369efd1389eec103d54416feecfc8be6a6c59037232b26d29f09f595ab59ed2",
    "simhash": "1:2605713f477371f8",
    "word_count": 656
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:20:25.630766+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. D. HALL v. H. C. JONES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brown, J.\nTbe plaintiff alleges tbat be entered into a valid contract witb tbe defendant by 'which tbe defendant contracted to sell tbe plaintiff a certain tract of land; tbe defendant refused to perform bis contract, and plaintiff seeks to recover damages for its breach. Tbe alleged contract is contained in certain letters, as follows:\nMe J D Hall Blueeield, W. Ya., 7 January, 1909.\nHalls Mills, N. G.\nMy deae Sie : \u2014 I am just in receipt of your letter, inquiring for casb price on tbe Calloway farm. I will -take fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500) casb for it.\nI am offered $1,600, witb $700 casb and tbe other in payments. Let me bear from you at once if you want tbe place.\nYours very truly,\nH. O. JONES.\nHalls Mills, N. 0., 11 January, 1909.\nDr. COMMODORE JoNES,\nBlue field, W..Va.\nDear Sir: \u2014 I accept your offer of $1,500 for tbe Calloway farm, and inclose you $1 to bind tbe trade.\nI will have tbe deed fixed up witbin fifteen or twenty \"day's and mail to you; then y\u00f3u can sign tbe deed and send it to tbe Deposit and Savings Bank, at North \"Wilkesboro, N. O., witb instructions to deliver to me upbn tbe payment of $1,500; or,. if you prefer, I will come to Bluefield, wbicb would add to my cost.\nSo if tbis is satisfactory, let me know, and acknowledge receipt of tbe $1. Yours very truly,\nJ. D. Hall.\nThere is some further correspondence between tbe parties subsequent to tbe above, wbicb it is unnecessary to set out. If there was a valid contract between tbe parties, it is contained in tbe above letters.\nWe agree witb bis Honor that there was no proper acceptance of the\u2019defendant\u2019s offer. It is familiar learning that to make a valid sale, tbe acceptance must be in tbe terms of tbe offer. 7 Am. and Eng., 125. No especial formalities are required, but tbe offer and acceptance must agree. The buyer has no right to attach any conditions, if be purposes to bold tbe seller upon tbe original offer. Tanning Co. v. Telegraph Co., 143 N. C., 376.\nTbe defendant offered to sell for cash. Tbis required tbe . buyer to pay at tbe seller\u2019s residence. It was tbe seller\u2019s right and duty then to prepare and deliver tbe deed at that place.\nTbis case is very much like Sawyer v. Brossart, 56 Am. Rep., 372, in wbicb a resident of California at Los Angeles addressed a letter to tbe plaintiff at bis residence in Iowa, offering to sell him certain land at a certain price. Tbe plaintiff telegraphed that be would take tbe property at tbe price, but added: \u201cMoney at your order at tbe First National Bank here.\u201d\nTbe Supreme Court of Iowa beld tbat it was not an acceptance; tbat defendant\u2019s offer entitled bim to bave tbe money paid to bim at Los Angeles, bis residence, and to deliver tbe deed there. See, also, Northwestern Iron Co. v. Meade, 21 Wis., 474; Baker v. Holt, 56 Wis., 100; 1 Parsons on Contracts (6th Ed.), 475.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brown, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Finley & Hendren for plaintiff.",
      "No counsel for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. D. HALL v. H. C. JONES.\n(Filed 10 December, 1913.)\nContracts \u2014 Offer to Sell \u2014 Acceptance\u2014Place of Payment.\nAn acceptance of an offer to sell must unconditionally be in accordance witb tbe full terms of tbe offer, to make a binding contract; and where tbe proposed vendor and purchaser reside in different towns or places, an offer to sej.1 lands at a certain \u2022 price implies that payment should be made in casb at tbe residence of tbe former, and an acceptance by tbe latter specifying payment at bis own place of residence is a variation from tbe terms of the'offer, and no contract is thereby effectuated.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Daniels, J., at Spring Term, 1913, of WlLKES.\nCivil action. From a judgment of nonsuit, tbe plaintiff appealed.\nFinley & Hendren for plaintiff.\nNo counsel for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0199-01",
  "first_page_order": 235,
  "last_page_order": 237
}