Oxendine v. . Stephenson

*239 Stacy, C. J. Tbe exceptions presented by defendant’s appeal are without special merit, and they will not be considered seriatim. Tbe action is for damages, ratber than for specific performance, because, a,t tbe time of tbe institution of tbe suit, tbe defendant bad parted with title and conveyed tbe land to a third person. While the authorities elsewhere are conflicting, it is the rule in this jurisdiction that when one, who has agreed orally to sell land, prepares and signs a, deed, which substantially expresses the bargain, and delivers the same in escrow, such writing is a sufficient memorandum to meet the requirements of our Statute of Frauds, and the contract may be considered and dealt with as a valid and binding agreement. Such was the holding in Pope v. McPhail, 173 N. C., 238, 91 S. E., 947, and Vinson v. Pugh, ibid., 189, 91 S. E., 838; and the decisions in Flowe v. Hartwick, 167 N. C., 448, 83 S. E., 841, and MaGee v. Blankenship, 95 N. C., 563, are in recognition of the same principle. No error having been made to appear, tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld. Tbe plaintiff also noted an exception to tbe judgment and gave notice of appeal, but this does not seem to have been prosecuted. No error.