{
  "id": 8655793,
  "name": "G. B. CARDEN v. W. R. McCONNELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carden v. McConnell",
  "decision_date": "1895-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "875",
  "last_page": "877",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "116 N.C. 875"
    }
  ],
  "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": "98 N. C., 696",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276074
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/98/0696-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 N. C., 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2085514
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/69/0137-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 N. C., 46",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2083711
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/68/0046-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Ired., 26",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683778
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/24/0026-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 245,
    "char_count": 4425,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.45,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7216796517369237e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9292559141478904
    },
    "sha256": "be97506caa514c56898b0d92d3eb39c1d396c76c530051071860a4a31e6f938f",
    "simhash": "1:ca4830b9fe23ceed",
    "word_count": 760
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:04:38.706573+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "G. B. CARDEN v. W. R. McCONNELL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Furohes, J. :\nThis is an action by plaintiff to recover damages for slander of bis title to land. Plaintiff offered in evidence a deed from T. M. Ledford and wife to bimself, and was then introduced to prove a sale of the land to one Isbell, and on stating that the sale was in writing the defendant objected to bis speaking of tbe contents of the paper writing, and tbe objection was sustained. Plaintiff then introduced Isbell who testified that be took tbe paper writing and assigned it to one Hoffman, of Detroit, Michigan. Plaintiff then offered to prove tbe contents of the paper writing. Defendant objected and the objection was sustained. Plaintiff excepted to His Honor\u2019s rulings and submitted to a non-suit and appealed.\nIt is a well settled principle of the law of evidence that where a transaction takes place between parties, which is reduced to writing and signed by them (or it may be otherwise assented to by them), and an action is brought to enforce this transaction, the written evidence must be produced or accounted for before other evidence is admissible as to the transaction. This rule is put upon the ground that the parties have agreed that the writing shall be the evidence of their contract or transaction. This learning is too familiar to call for citations to support it.\nBut this rule only obtains in actions between parties to the written evidence of the contract and where its enforcement is the gravamen \u2014 the grievance complained of \u2014 the substantial cause of the action. Burrill\u2019s Dictionary, 568 ; 1 Greenleaf Evidence, 366. This action is not between the same parties who made the written contract to sell the land. That was between the plaintiff and Isbell, and this action is between the plaintiff Carden and the defendant McConnell. The defendant McConnell is no party to this writing, and is in no way bound by it. And as he is not bound by it, as between him and the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not bound by it. If it binds one, it binds the other. And as it does not bind defendant, it does not bind the plaintiff. Reynolds v. Magness, 2 Ired., 26. But this action is not brought upon this written contract between the plaintiff and Isbell. It is brought against the defendant upon the allegation that he had falsely claimed, to the party to whom plaintiff was about to sell his land, that he the defendant was the owner of one-half of the mineral interest in the same, and plaintiff\u2019s title was not good, and that defendant by this means had prevented him from making the sale. This false representation is what the plaintiff complains of. This is the gravamen \u2014 the grievance. Biirrill\u2019s Dictionary, supra. The sale to Isbell, and the writing which was the evidence of that transaction, as between plaintiff and Isbell, is collateral to the gravamen \u2014 the issue \u2014 in this action, and is only material as to the measure of damage to which plaintiff would be entitled, if he sustains the issue as to the slander \u2014 the alleged grievance , he has against defendant. This paper then being collateral to the issue \u2014 the grievance complained of \u2014 its contents may be shown without producing the paper. Reynolds v. Magness, supra; Pollock v. Wilcox, 68 N. C., 46; Wilson v. Miller, 69 N. C., 137; State v. Wilkerson, 98 N. C., 696. There was error in sustaining defendant\u2019s objection to the testimony.\nNew Trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Furohes, J. :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. G. B. Garden, for plaintiff (appellant).",
      "Mr. J. B. Batchelor, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "G. B. CARDEN v. W. R. McCONNELL.\nAction for Damages \u2014 Slander of Title \u2014 Parol Evidence of Written Contract, when admissible.\n1. The rule that parol evidence cannot he allowed as to the contents of a written instrument applies only in actions between parties to the writing and where its enforcement is the gravamen or substantial cause of the action.\n2. Where, in an action for slander of plaintiff\u2019s title, it was alleged that the defendant had, by misrepresentations as to his title, prevented the carrying out of a written contract for the sale of the land between plaintiff and another, parol evidence as to the contents of such writing was admissible, such contract being collateral to the gravamen of the charge and material only as to the measure of damages.\n\u201e Civil ActioN, tried before Shuford, J., and a jury, at Eall Term, 1894, of Clay Superior Couri^. From a judgment, on a verdict for defendant, plaintiff appealed. Tbe facts appear in tbe opinion of Associate Justice Furohes.\nMr. G. B. Garden, for plaintiff (appellant).\nMr. J. B. Batchelor, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0875-01",
  "first_page_order": 903,
  "last_page_order": 905
}