
    J. A. BLALOCK v. J. H. HODGES and Wife et als.
    (Filed 8 March, 1916.)
    Deeds and Conveyances — Options — Specific Performance — Registration — Judgments.
    An option on land is the subject of specific performance; and if when registered the owner sells to another subject thereto, and in suit brought thereunder the defendants deny the tender in accordance with the terms of the option, but allege their readiness to convey the lands excepting, one acre, a decree that on payment of the consideration the defendants convey the lands excepting one acre, and requiring the plaintiff to pay the costs, is not open to valid objection by the defendants.
    Appeal by defendants from Lyon, J., at January Term, 1916, of HARNETT.
    Civil action commenced on 29 November, 1915, to compel the defendants to execute a deed conveying a certain tract of land pursuant to an option executed by the defendants Hodges and wife to the plaintiff, which was duly registered.
    The option gave to the plaintiff the right to tender the money on or before 1 December, 1915, and to secure a deed for the land.
    The defendant Hodges and wife conveyed the land described in the option to the defendant Tilghman, but with the express agreement that the conveyance was subject to the option.
    The plaintiff alleges in his complaint the execution of the option; that the purchase price had been tendered to the defendants and demand made for the execution of the deed, and that the defendants had refused to perform their contract prior to the commencement of the action.
    The defendants admit the execution of the option and deny the tender of the purchase money, but they also allege their readiness to convey the land described in the option with the exception of one acre, which they say was not intended to be covered by the oj)tion.
    The sixth paragraph of the complaint is as follows:
    6. That the defendants refused and still refuse and fail to accept the amount so tendered, and refused and still refuse to execute and deliver unto the plaintiff a conveyance of the land described in said option.
    
      Tbe defendants denied tbis paragraph of tbe complaint.
    Judgment was entered upon tbe pleadings compelling tbe execution of tbe deed by tbe defendants to tbe plaintiff, but excepting therefrom tbe one acre of land referred to in tbe answer, and adjudging that tbe plaintiffs pay tbe costs of tbe action, and tbe defendants excepted and appealed.
    
      R. L. Godwin, G. L. Guy, and Clifford & Townsend for plaintiff.
    
    
      R. F. Young for defendants.
    
   AlleN, J.

We see no reason for disturbing tbe judgment. Tbe option is a valid contract and one of which tbe specific performance will be enforced (Ward v. Albertson, 165 N. C., 223), and tbe defendants not only admit tbe execution of tbe option in tbe answer, but they aver their readiness to perform it, and tbe only objection made is that one acre of land was included by mistake.

. Tbe decree entered in tbe Superior Court gives tbe defendants all for which they contend by excepting tbe one acre of land from tbe deed which tbe defendants are required to execute, and tbe plaintiff is required to pay tbe costs of tbe action.

There is nothing in tbe decree of which tbe defendants can justly complain.

Affirmed.  