{
  "id": 8651045,
  "name": "J. B. CARVER and wife v. W. O. BRADY and A. G. BRADY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carver v. Brady",
  "decision_date": "1889-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "219",
  "last_page": "221",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "104 N.C. 219"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "71 N. C., 498",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11278850
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/71/0498-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N. C., 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682456
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/82/0134-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 N. C., 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649372
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/103/0127-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N. C., 48",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272539
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/92/0048-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 N. C., 32",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8684804
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/90/0032-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 209,
    "char_count": 2943,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.544,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.16792863399493e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5855640618429877
    },
    "sha256": "802f9b975a2133296a93dd55a798d41904f1356b1d51275a41ea1ab8bedb14d2",
    "simhash": "1:983934a4bb6b50c5",
    "word_count": 494
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:43.175763+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. B. CARVER and wife v. W. O. BRADY and A. G. BRADY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Shepherd, J.:\n1. \u201c The plaintiff insisted that the Court should restrain the defendants from selling until they had given the plaintiff ninety days\u2019 notice of their intention to foreclose.\u201d It has been fully settled by this Court that such notice is unnecessary. Bridgers v. Morris, 90 N. C., 32; Manning v. Elliott, 92 N. C., 48.\n2. The plaintiff further insisted \u201c that the order of the Cpurt should restrain the defendants from collecting anything more than the principal money of his debt, because the defendants had received and reserved usurious interest, and had thereby forfeited all interest, as provided by law.\u201d The contract here was to pay eight per cent, interest, and this the plaintiff must pay, together with the principal, when he seeks the equitable aid of the Court. This question is settled in Cook v. Patterson, 103 N. C., 127, where it is said that, \u201cwhen the plaintiff asks the Court to interfere-and grant an injunction till the true amount can be ascertained, he is deemed subject to the rule that one who seeks equitable relief must do equity. The Court will, therefore, compel him, as a condition upon which the aid of the Court is extended to him, to pay the amount that is justly due.\u201d Manning v. Elliott, supra; Purnell v. Vaughan, 82 N. C., 134; Simonton v. Lanier, 71 N. C., 498.\nWe see no reason to depart from the principles declared in these well-considered cases.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Shepherd, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Thomas H. Sutton {Mr. N. W. Ray filed a brief), for plaintiff.",
      "Mr. John W. Hinsdale filed a brief for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. B. CARVER and wife v. W. O. BRADY and A. G. BRADY.\nInjunction \u2014 Mortgage\u2014Usury\u2014Notice.\n1. A mortgagee will not be restrained because he failed to give mortgagor ninety days\u2019 notice of his intention to foreclose. Such notice is unnecessary.\n2. Before one can ask the Court, by injunction, to restrain a sale under mortgage, on account of usurious interest charged, he must pay what is justly due, principal and-interest. He who would have equity must do equity.\nCivil action, pending in Cumberland Superior Court, and heard, upon an application for an injunction, by Gilmer, J., at May Term, 1889.\nThe motion was by plaintiff for an injunction to prevent the defendants from selling the plaintiff\u2019s land under mortgage, as set forth in complaint us'ed as an affidavit.\nThe Court refused to grant the injunction, and plaintiff excepted.\nThe plaintiff insisted that the Court should restrain the defendants from selling until they had given plaintiff ninety days\u2019 notice of their intention to foreclose.\nThe Court refused to so order, and plaintiff excepted.\nThe plaintiff insisted that the order of the Court should restrain the defendants from collecting anything more than the principal money of his debt, because the defendants had received and reserved and taken usurious interest, and had thereby forfeited all interest, as provided by law.\nThe Court declined to so rule, and plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nMr. Thomas H. Sutton {Mr. N. W. Ray filed a brief), for plaintiff.\nMr. John W. Hinsdale filed a brief for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0219-01",
  "first_page_order": 251,
  "last_page_order": 253
}