McCracken v. . McCracken , 88 N.C. 272 ( 1883 )

Ruffin, J.

In consideration of the decisions made in Chambers v. Massey, 7 Ired. Eq., 286; Dunn v. Moore, 3 Ired. Eq., 364; and Bain v. Dulin, 6 Jones’ Eq., 195, it may well be doubted whether the court can grant any relief, even so far as to give the purchaser compensation for his improvements, under a parol contract for the purchase of land, the terms of which are denied or disputed by the defendant in his answer. These cases all go to the length of saying, that if, in an action brought to enforce the specific performance of such a contract, or in the alternative for compensation for improvements put upon the land, the answer should deny that there was any contract, or allege that its terms differed from those set out in the complaint, then the court could grant neither relief, because the statute forbids its going into proof to establish for any purpose whatsoever, a contract variant from the one admitted in the answer; and if upon that the plaintiff could get no relief, he could not get it at all. .

These cases seem to have been well considered, and much pains taken in them to make known their reasons and to show wherein they differed from other decisions (and it is not to be denied that there are others) which seemed to be opposed to them. It would, therefore, require a most convincing argument to induce me, speaking for myself alone, to depart from principles so maturely considered and so clearly enunciated, and especially as they seem to be in strict keeping with the wise policy of the statute of frauds, in that, they close the door upon temptations to commit perjuries, and the assertion of feigned titles to property. It is not necessary, however, that we should now go to the full length of those decisions, as we conceive a much less stringent rule, and one sanctioned by all the authorities, is sufficient to preclude this plaintiff from the recovery he is seeking to make.

In Albea v. Griffin, 2 Dev. & Bat. Eq., 9, which is so often referred to as the leading case on the subject, the right of a purchaser under a parol contract to have compensation for inprovements, made under an honest expectation that the land would be his, was put expressly upon the ground that it would be against conscience to allow the owner under such circumstances to acquire and enjoy the fruits of another’s labor, or the expenditure of another’s money, and thus enrich himself to the injury of that other. But neither in that case nor in any other in which its principles have been adopted — and there are many such — is there even a suggestion to be found, that an action can be sustained in any form, or in any court, whether at law or in equity, for damages for the non-performance of such a contract; and that is simply what this action is, nothing more nor less. To permit it to be done, would be for the courts, to act in the very teeth of the statute, in defiance of the declared will of the legislature.

Wherein could consist the difference between a direct enforcement of the contract, in such a case, and the court’s saying to the owner, we cannot compel you to part with your property, but should you undertake to exercise ownership over it, we will mulct you with damages? The most they can do, and all they have ever undertaken to do, is to say to him that if he repudiates the contract he must be content with the taking back what was his own, and at its own intrinsic value, unenhanced at the cost or by the labor of another.

But what sort of connection is there between that principle and this ease, in which the defendant is not only content with being restored to what was his own, but invites the plaintiff to take what is his (buildings, machinery and all), and craves the aid of the court in compelling him to do so.

If we consider the contract between the parties as a license given to the plaintiff to enter upon the land, and erect and enjoy the improvements, we cannot perceive that it in the least serves to help his case. If purely a license, it excused, it is true, his entry upon the land which would otherwise have been a trespass; but it was still revocable, and its continuance entirely dependent upon the will of the owmer. If intended to pass a more permanent and continuing right in the land, whereby the authority or estate of the owner could be in the least impaired, it was then not only necessary to be evidenced by writing, but could only be made effectual by deed. In Hilliard on Vendors, 124, it is said that a license which grants an estate, however short, requires a deed; and in 3 Kent, 352, the doctrine is thus stated: “A claim for an easement must be founded upon a grant or upon a presumption which supposes one, for it is a permanent interest in another’s land, with a righ't to enter and enjoy the same”; and to the same effect are the decisions in this court in Bridgers v. Purcell, 1 Dev. & Bat., 492, and Carter v. Page, 4 Ired., 424. In any point of view that can be taken of the case, this court thinks the plaintiff must fail in his action.

Having made a contract such as the law discourages from considerations of public convenience, he must abide the consequences; and as the defendant disclaims a purpose to appropriate what is his (the plaintiff’s), he must be content with getting that back without compensation for any loss he may have sustained.

The judgment, of the court below is, therefore, declared to be erroneous, and the same is reversed, and judgment will be entered here that the defendant will go without day.