From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Land Co. v. Crawford

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 1897
27 S.E. 31 (N.C. 1897)

Opinion

(February Term, 1897.)

Principal and Agent — Sale of Land by Agent — Authority to Rescind Sale.

1. It is the duty of one dealing with an agent of limited powers "to look out for the power" and its extent in contracting for the principal.

2. The authority of an agent to sell land does not, per se, confer authority to cancel the trade without the principal's knowledge or consent and the burden of proving the agent's authority to rescind is on the one relying upon it.

ACTION, for the purchase price of land, tried before Brown, J., and a jury, at December, 1895, Special Term, of FORSYTH. There was a verdict, followed by judgment, for the plaintiff, and defendant appealed.

Messrs. Watson Buxton for plaintiff.

Messrs. Glenn Manly for defendant (appellant).


Plaintiff sold Lot 200 at auction to defendant, who was to pay a part cash and give notes for balance. No cash was ever paid, but notes were given for the whole amount. No bond for title was given, as no cash was paid. Plaintiff now tenders deed and demands judgment. These facts are admitted, and the defense set up is that subsequently the plaintiff's agent agreed to rescind and cancel the contract of sale. This is denied by plaintiff, and the evidence was (348) conflicting. But assuming defendant's evidence to be true, it does not appear, nor was any evidence offered to that effect, that the agent had authority to rescind the contract. The authority of an agent to sell land does not per se confer authority to cancel the trade without the principal's knowledge or notice, and the burden of showing the agent's authority to rescind rested on the defendant in this case, which was done. It is the duty of one dealing with an agent of limited power "to look out for the power" and its extent in contracting for the principal. Earp v. Richardson, 81 N.C. 5; Biggs v. Ins. Co., 88 N.C. 141. The statute of frauds is not pleaded, and we have no question on that matter.

The defendant offered to prove, by his own oath, what Woods had told him about the lot. This was hearsay, and therefore incompetent.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Land Co. v. Crawford

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 1897
27 S.E. 31 (N.C. 1897)
Case details for

Land Co. v. Crawford

Case Details

Full title:WEST-END HOTEL AND LAND COMPANY v. T. B. CRAWFORD

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Feb 1, 1897

Citations

27 S.E. 31 (N.C. 1897)
120 N.C. 347

Citing Cases

United States v. American Sales Corp.

He cannot, after sale has been made, cancel or rescind the contract, or receive back and resell the property…

Stein v. Xepapas

Suit by Ben Stein against N.J. Xepapas for specific performance of a contract to convey real estate. From a…