The defendant owned the site and water power for a sawmill on the French Broad River. It was agreed that the plaintiff should build a sawmill at this site at the joint expense of the two parties, the plaintiff overseeing all the work. The defendant was to make no charge for the work of his slave hands. The plaintiff had the work done according to the contract and paid a sum of [dollars] 438 towards the costs. The defendant paid [dollars] 266 according to a handwritten settlement between them drawn up in the writing of the defendant. The plaintiff complained that the defendant was not complying with his side of the bargain, that he was keeping sole and exclusive possession of the mill for himself and working it as his exclusive property and refused to allow the plaintiff joint possession. Defendant said that their agreement was void under an act of 1819 as it had not been put in writing. Justice Battle said that this was true unless the letters written by the defendant to the plaintiff constituted a written contract. The Supreme Court ruled that they did not; they were merely an offer of joint ownership. Verdict on this matter for the defendant. However, the plaintiff was entitled to his claim to be paid for the improvements made to the land under his request for general relief. Decree made for the defendant to answer in the court below on this matter.
