This case presents the working of C. C. P. in a new phase. The action is for balance due on a note. The defendants make no defence and set up no counterclaim, but aver that the note was given for the price of a parcel of land in the city of Charlotte, and set up a claim, *353not as counter, or in bar of the plaintiff’s right of action, but as defendant and growing out of the transaction, that the defendant Smith is entitled to have a deed for the land purchased by him as a concurrent act with the payment of the price; but that a difficulty in the specific performance of the contract of purchase has been raised by reason of the fact that the plaintiff is not willing to execute a deed for the land that was sold by him and bought by defendant Smith, to-wit: lots Nos. 1 and 3 on Trade street, extending from the railroad lot to the dower lot, but insists upon stopping short of the dower lot by fifty feet, on the ground that the distance from the railroad lot to the dower lot, on measurement, turns out to be 174 feet, whereas it is recited in the note as being 124 feet, which the defendants allege was caused by mistake, and asks to have the mistake corrected so that the defendant Smith may get a deed for the land on payment of the purchase money. Upon an issue submitted to a jury, it is found that lots No. 1 and 3 are bounded by the railroad lot and the dower lot, so as take in the whole front.
We are of opinion that the plot and the deed made by plaintiff for a lot corresponding on the other side of the square was properly admitted in evidence. The deed and its recital, although made to another person, are admissions (certainly not less forcible because in writing) of the plaintiff relevant to the issue as to what land was sold.
After verdict, in this new phase of procedure and practice, there was a difficulty as to the judgment that should be rendered. His Honor rendered judgment that plaintiff recover the sum of $-, balance of the principal and interest of the note. From which judgment the plaintiff appealed. This appeal was for error in the reception of evidence, to-wit: the plot and deed.
In this there is no error. The motion for a venire de novo *354was properly refused, and the judgment in respect to the .ground upon which the plaintiff appealed -is affirmed.
See same case on appeal of defendant.
Judgment accordingly.