Wilkins v. Ferrell, 25 N.C. App. 112 (1975)

March 5, 1975 · North Carolina Court of Appeals · No. 7414DC903
25 N.C. App. 112
ROSA F. WILKINS v. K. B. FERRELL

ROSA F. WILKINS v. K. B. FERRELL

No. 7414DC903

(Filed 5 March 1975)

Contracts § 27— sale of building — failure to disclose facts — recovery of purchase price

In an action to recover the purchase price of a building purportedly sold by defendant to plaintiff, the evidence supported findings by the court that defendant did not disclose to plaintiff that he had no right to the building unless it was removed from a third party’s land within 30 days and that it was not removed within that time, and the findings supported judgment for plaintiff.

Appeal by defendant from Read, Judge. Judgment entered 13 May 1974 in District Court, Durham County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 January 1975.

Bryant, Lipton, Bryant & Battle, P. A. by James B. Maxwell and Lee A. Patterson II for plaintiff appellee.

Edward G. Johnson for defendant appellant.

VAUGHN, Judge.

Plaintiff seeks to recover judgment against defendant, her brother, for $1,500.00.

Plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that defendant purchased certain real estate from Mobil Oil Corporation. As part of the consideration from defendant, he obligated himself to remove a building from other lands of Mobil within thirty days. He purported to sell the building to plaintiff for $1,500.00. *113Defendant did not disclose to plaintiff that he had no right to the building unless it was removed from Mobil’s land within thirty days. Neither plaintiff nor defendant removed the house within thirty days and Mobil subsequently arranged for someone else to remove the building.

Defendant’s evidence tended to show that plaintiff bought the building with full knowledge that it had to be removed within thirty days.

The court, sitting without a jury, found the relevant facts in favor of plaintiff and entered judgment against defendant for $1,500.00, with interest. The evidence supports those findings of facts and the facts so found support the judgment.

Affirmed.

Judges Martin and Arnold concur.