Turley v. Nowell, 62 N.C. 301, 1 Phil. Eq. 301 (1868)

Jan. 1868 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

62 N.C. 301, 1 Phil. Eq. 301

T. W. TURLEY v. J. P. NOWELL.

In suits for specific performance, in the absence of allegations of fraud or imposition, the court will not review decisions made by the parties as to the comparative values of the property in question and the article in which it was paid for.

Contracts, the condition of which is Confederate money, are not therefore illegal.

(Phillips v. Hooker, ««¿«'193 cited and approved.)

Bill for a specific performance of a contract to convey land, filed to Spring Term 1866 of the Court of Equity for Cleaveland; and set for hearing and transferred to this court at Fall Term 1867.

The bill sought a specific performance of the following contract:

“Received, Shelby N. C., December 1, 1864, from T. W. Turley, six thousand dollars in Confederate notes in full of the house and lot in the town of Shelby, being the same on which I now reside, -which I have sold to the said Turley and for which I will execute a warranty deed as soon as presented.

J. P. NOWELL.”

The contract was admitted by the defendant, but' he declined to perform it upon the ground that at the time when the property was sold it was' worth at least one thousand dollars “in good money,” aud that the scrip received by him under the contract, was not worth, by the scale, more than one hundred and seventy dollars; and that very soon after the contract was made he became satisfied of this, and offered to the plaintiff to pay back what he had received, also to make a deed if he would pay him a reasonable sum for the same, &c.

There was a replication, but no proofs; and the cause wTas set down upon bill, answer and exhibits.

Bynum, and Phillips d( Battle, for the plaintiff.

It is not necessary that the consideration be adequate. The parties themselves are the best judges of that. Adams’ Eq., 78, 79; White v. Thompson, 1 D; & B. Eq., 493; Sugd. Vend. 259, 260. And see Phillips v. Hoolcer (last term.)

Merrimon, contra.

It is matter of sound discretion whether the court will enforce a contract by specific performance. It will not administer such relief where it would be hard, oppressive, &c, to do so. Story Eq. Jur. s. 742, 750a, 751, 769 to 777; Adams Eq., n. to p. 305; Lloyd v. Wheatly, 2 Jon. Eq., 267; Gannaday v. Sheppard, 2 J on. Eq., 224; Leigh v. Grump, 1 Ire. Eq., 299.

Pearson, C. J.

The plaintiff is entitled to a specific performance of the contract. The parties were their own judges as to the value of the property and the value of Confederate notes, and there is no allegation of fraud or imposition. Indeed the only ground on which the defendant resists the equity of the plaintiff is the fact that by the result of the war Confederate notes became of no value, but he needed such notes at the time he made the contract, accepted them in payment for the land, and must abide the loss.

That the contract was not illegal is settled, Phillips v. Hooker, ante, 193.

Per Curiam.

Decree for the plaintiff.