{
  "id": 8655284,
  "name": "MRS. BINA ARPS et al. v. J. L. DAVENPORT et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arps v. Davenport",
  "decision_date": "1922-03-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "72",
  "last_page": "73",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "183 N.C. 72"
    }
  ],
  "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": "161 N. C., 650",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272107
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/161/0650-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 N. C., 372",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652481
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/155/0372-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 233,
    "char_count": 2748,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.45,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0436308165690576e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5515273284272558
    },
    "sha256": "08fe3d1a190a0566ddd518663c792e898d34c4ff42d1445413ed1b296d64e174",
    "simhash": "1:df4aaa4fdc80f2eb",
    "word_count": 473
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:03:22.299745+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MRS. BINA ARPS et al. v. J. L. DAVENPORT et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, J.\nConsidering the facts, as above stated, and in view of the pleadings filed herein, we think the judgment of nonsuit was erroneously entered. The statute of frauds is not pleaded, and there is no denial \u2022of the contract; on the other hand, it is expressly admitted. Section (C) of the further answer reads: \u201cThat the defendants at all times stood ready, able, and willing to pay to the plaintiffs the amount due under the option at the time the same came due, deducting for the deficiency in acreage above set out, and now offer to accept and receive the land \u25a0and pay for same, less the sum of $30 per acre for the 52 acres, which represent the actual deficiency in the acreage as aforesaid.\u201d\nUnder authority of Henry v. Hilliard, 155 N. C., 372, and cases there cited, the present judgment, which forms the basis of plaintiffs\u2019 appeal, must be set aside and the cause remanded for further proceedings. See, also, Herndon v. R. R., 161 N. C., 650.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. L. Whitley for plaintiffs.",
      "Ward & Grimes for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MRS. BINA ARPS et al. v. J. L. DAVENPORT et al.\n(Filed 1 March, 1922.)\nContracts \u2014 Options\u2014Verbal Agreements \u2014 Lands\u2014Statute of Frauds\u2014 Pleadings \u2014 Admissions.\nA verbal option of lands will not be declared void by tbe courts, as a matter of law, under tbe statute of frauds requiring a writing, when tbe party to be charged admits tbe alleged contract, in accordance with its stated terms, and resists performance upon entirely separate and distinct matters.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Allen, J., at October Term, 1921, of WASHINGTON.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract.\nOn 4 November, 1919, tbe plaintiffs, Mrs. Bina Arps and husband, -J. M. Arps, executed and delivered to the defendants a paper-writing whereby the said defendants were given the right, privilege, and option to purchase the \u201cArps farm\u201d of 200 acres or more, situate in Plymouth Township, Washington County, at and for a.stipulated price and upon the terms therein set out, but it was understood and agreed that the said \u2022option should be exercised on or before 10 December, 1919.\nThe defendants gave the plaintiffs due and timely notice of their intention to exercise the option and paid a part of the purchase price, but failed to execute the notes and mortgage, as provided in the contract \u2022of sale, and now refuse to comply with their agreement upon the ground that there is a shortage of approximately 52 acres in the land contracted to be sold.\nAt the close of plaintiffs\u2019 evidence there was a judgment as of nonsuit upon the theory that as the contract was in the nature of an option, and \u2022defendants did not accept same in writing, the plaintiffs were remediless under the statute of frauds.\nPlaintiffs appealed.\nW. L. Whitley for plaintiffs.\nWard & Grimes for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0072-01",
  "first_page_order": 132,
  "last_page_order": 133
}