Kitchen v. Herring
42 North Carolina Reports 190 (1851)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract for the sale of land is specifically enforceable in a court of equity because land is presumed to have a unique and peculiar value, regardless of its specific qualities, such as being valuable primarily for its timber.
Facts:
- In December 1846, Herring executed a written contract to sell a tract of land to Kitchen.
- Pridgen, who witnessed the agreement, was the surety for Kitchen's $325 promissory note for the purchase price.
- In March 1847, Kitchen was put into possession of the land.
- Shortly after, Musgrove, under a contract with Pridgen, began cutting down timber, which constituted the land's chief value.
- In January, Herring executed a deed for the same tract of land to Pridgen, not Kitchen.
- Following the conveyance to Pridgen, Kitchen was turned out of possession of the land.
Procedural Posture:
- John L. Kitchen filed a Bill in a court of equity against Herring, Pridgen, and Musgrove.
- Kitchen sought a decree for specific performance of the land sale contract, an accounting of profits from the timber, and an injunction to stop further cutting.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the fact that a tract of land's chief value derives from its timber prevent a court of equity from ordering specific performance of a contract for its sale?
Opinions:
Majority - Pearson, J.
No. A contract for the sale of land is subject to specific performance without regard to the land's specific quality or quantity. The court rejected the argument that specific performance should be denied because the land's value was primarily in its timber, a resource for which a monetary value could be calculated. The court reasoned that land holds a special and favored status in Anglo-Saxon law, and it is always assumed to have a peculiar value. Unlike fungible goods like corn or cotton, land is considered unique, making the legal remedy of monetary damages inherently inadequate for a buyer who was promised a specific parcel.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the traditional legal doctrine that all land is unique, making specific performance the standard remedy for breaches of real estate contracts. It clarifies that the rationale for this rule is not based on a factual inquiry into a specific parcel's qualities but on a legal presumption of uniqueness. This precedent solidifies the principle that sellers cannot evade specific performance by arguing the land is only valuable for its fungible resources, thereby promoting stability and predictability in real estate transactions.
Unlock the full brief for Kitchen v. Herring