{
  "id": 8521906,
  "name": "ROY H. GREEN, Plaintiff v. BAIN HARBOUR, Individually and BAIN HARBOUR, INC., Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Green v. Harbour",
  "decision_date": "1994-01-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 9317SC537",
  "first_page": "280",
  "last_page": "281",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "113 N.C. App. 280"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 75-16.1",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 75-16",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 S.E.2d 161",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 N.C. 94",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561932
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/277/0094-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 S.E.2d 196",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1952,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "197"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "235 N.C. 384",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624721
      ],
      "year": 1952,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "386"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/235/0384-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 S.E.2d 820",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 N.C. 824",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626084
      ],
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/252/0824-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 221,
    "char_count": 3199,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.772,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.668626171836543e-08,
      "percentile": 0.49200281560816866
    },
    "sha256": "15107e8ef8ce218fd254f604a0e4dda6e5d8599d7a2ed36fb9ce757f31dc9cb5",
    "simhash": "1:2bdbfc245e0f56a2",
    "word_count": 530
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:21:41.323369+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WYNN and MARTIN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ROY H. GREEN, Plaintiff v. BAIN HARBOUR, Individually and BAIN HARBOUR, INC., Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Chief Judge.\nThe issue before this Court is whether the trial court erred in allowing defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss one of plaintiffs alternative causes of action pursuant to N.C.R. Civ. P. 12(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We conclude, as defendants concede, that the trial court erred in allowing defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss.\nDefendants\u2019 motion to dismiss asserted the statute of frauds, an affirmative defense which must be pleaded. Yeager v. Dobbins, 252 N.C. 824, 114 S.E.2d 820 (1960); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 8(c) (1990). \u201cIt is settled in this jurisdiction that the provisions of the statute of frauds cannot be taken advantage of by demurrer.\u201d Weant v. McCanless, 235 N.C. 384, 386, 70 S.E.2d 196, 197 (1952). Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint and performs the same function as the old common law demurrer. Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 176 S.E.2d 161 (1970). Therefore, defendants may not take advantage of the provisions of the statute of frauds by a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. For the reasons stated, the trial court\u2019s order must be reversed.\nReversed.\nJudges WYNN and MARTIN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pfaff, Elmore & Hayes, by Susan Hayes, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Harrington & Stultz, by Thomas S. Harrington, for defendant-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROY H. GREEN, Plaintiff v. BAIN HARBOUR, Individually and BAIN HARBOUR, INC., Defendants\nNo. 9317SC537\n(Filed 4 January 1994)\nFrauds, Statute of \u00a7 32 (NCI4th)\u2014 affirmative defense \u2014 specific pleading required\nDefendants could not take advantage of the provisions of the statute of frauds by a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, since the statute of frauds is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded.\nAm Jur 2d, Statute of Frauds \u00a7\u00a7 589 et seq.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 26 February 1993 by Judge Peter M. McHugh in Rockingham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 December 1993.\nPlaintiff filed a complaint against defendants regarding an oral contract for real property. In the complaint plaintiff sought recovery of all sums paid defendants plus interest at the legal rate, ad valorem taxes paid, and the costs of all improvements made to the real property. He also sought to treble these damages pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 75-16 (1988) and to recover attorney\u2019s fees pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 75-16.1 (1988). In an alternative cause of action plaintiff sought specific performance of the contract.\nOn 25 January 1993 defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s alternative cause of action pursuant to N.C.R. Civ. P. 12(b) for failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. This motion stated that plaintiff\u2019s complaint on its face showed that the alleged contract was an oral contract for the conveyance of real property and was therefore barred by the Statute of Frauds. The trial court allowed defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss in an order signed 24 February 1993 and filed 26 February 1993. From this -order plaintiff appeals.\nPfaff, Elmore & Hayes, by Susan Hayes, for plaintiff-appellant.\nHarrington & Stultz, by Thomas S. Harrington, for defendant-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0280-01",
  "first_page_order": 310,
  "last_page_order": 311
}