Henry v. Shore
Henry v. Shore
197 S.E.2d 270; 18 N.C. App. 463; 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1903
(South Eastern Reporter, Second Series)
Henry v. Shore
Opinion
There was no error in dismissing this action as to all defendants. The summary judgment in favor of Shore was correct for that there was no contract in writing pertaining to the conveyance of the realty as required by North Carolina General Statutes 22-2. “A wholly unexecuted parol contract to sell land is void.” Riggs v. Anderson, 260 N.C. 221, 132 S.E. 2d 312 (1963).
With regard to the Talberts, Miller, and the Savings and Loan Association, the North Carolina registration statute, G.S. 47-18, is controlling. Bruton v. Smith, 225 N.C. 584, 36 S.E. 2d 9 (1945); Eller v. Arnold, 230 N.C. 418, 53 S.E. 2d 266 (1949).
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.