Ballard v. . Boyette

AlleN, J. The doctrine of enforcing a parol contract to convey land upon the ground of part performance does not prevail in this State. Ellis v. Ellis, 16 N. C., 341; Rhea v. Craig, 141 N. C., 610. But it is well settled that the owner of land who has entered into a contract of this character cannot repudiate the contract and retain the benefits which he has received under it, whether in the form of money paid upon the purchase price or of the enhanced value of the land by reason of improvements. Albea v. Griffin, 22 N. C., 9; Luton v. Badham, 127 N. C., 96; Kelly v. Johnson, 135 N. C., 647; Ford v. Stroud, 150 N. C., 364. As was said in Pitt v. Moore, 99 N. C., 90: “Whatever may have been the ancient rule, it is now well settled by many decisions, from Baker v. Carson, 21 N. C., 381, in which there was a divided Court, but Ruffin, C. J., and Gaston, J., concurring, and Albea v. Griffin, 22 N. C., 9, by a unanimous Court, to Hedgepeth v. Rose, 95 N. C., 41, that where the labor or money of a person has been expended in a permanent improvement and enrichment of the property of another by a parol contract or agreement which cannot be enforced because, and only because, it is not in writing, the party repudiating the contract, as he may do, will not be allowed to take and hold the property thus improved and enriched, ‘without compensation for the additional value which these improvements have conferred upon the property/ and it rests upon the broad principle that it is against conscience that one man shall be enriched to the injury and cost of another, induced by his own act.” The position of the defendant is, however, stronger than this, because, when the verdict is considered in connection with the pleadings and the evidence, an agreement is established to convey the land to the defendant upon the payment of the purchase price, entered into between the plaintiff and the party who conveyed to him, and .the defendant, at the time of the transmission of the legal title to the plaintiff, and this constitutes a valid and enforcible parol trust. Wood v. Cherry, 73 N. C., 110; Sykes v. Boone, 132 N. C., 202. And the plaintiff, having refused to perform his part of the contract, cannot retain benefits received thereunder. 6 Ruling Case Law, 936. The case of Wood v. Tinsley, 138 N. C., 507, if otherwise applicable, has no bearing, as the right of Yann, trustee, is given priority in the decree over the rights of the defendant. *27 The objection of the plaintiff that the defendant cannot recover for improvements made, because he has shown no color of title, would be important if the defendant was proceeding under the statute (Rev., 652) ; but it appears that he is not doing so, and, on the contrary, is seeking relief upon familiar equitable principles. No error.