Featherstone v. . Glenn

Stacy, C. J. In the state of the record as it existed after the acceptance of defendant’s offer to reconvey and redeliver the property in eon- *406 troversy, we think the issues submitted to the jury were inappropriate. The condition attached to defendant’s offer was that plaintiff should pay to the defendant the amount which she had expended for improvements. This eliminated any technical question of betterments. Barrett v. Williams, 220 N. C., 32, 16 S. E. (2d), 398; Pritchard v. Williams, 176 N. C., 108, 96 S. E., 733; Rogers v. Timberlake, 223 N. C., 59, 25 S. E. (2d), 167. Apparently the only matter left open was the amount expended for improvements or their reasonable value. Indeed, the plaintiff testified on her examination in chief: “I have tendered to her and I am willing that she may take out of the house anything that she put in there and pay the reasonable value of permanent improvements to my building.” Under the judgment as rendered, the plaintiff gets her property back and pays nothing for the improvements. This would seem to be at variance with the agreement reached on the hearing. New trial.