{
  "id": 11252073,
  "name": "DORA S. ALEXANDER v. LULA MORRIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Alexander v. Morris",
  "decision_date": "1907-09-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "22",
  "last_page": "24",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "145 N.C. 22"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 217,
    "char_count": 3362,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.444,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.565170110192638e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2864410241678183
    },
    "sha256": "e04f4821530aa411e1fb1fc51c724d5bef230a742dcfa31d1b51195a3d7efe12",
    "simhash": "1:c47f1aa850801a4e",
    "word_count": 584
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:50:30.483289+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DORA S. ALEXANDER v. LULA MORRIS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Rrowal J.\nThe property in controversy was leased for eight years, beginning on 2 January, 1900, to Mrs. E. E. Cohoon, wife of E. P. Cohoon. On 30 July, 1903, E. E. Cohoon and husband duly assigned the lease to Abner Alexander, with a proviso that if Alexander should die before the expiration of the lease the property should return to Mrs. Cohoon for the remainder of the lease. Alexander died 8 April, 1904, and on 30 August, 1904, Dora S. Alexander, the plaintiff, took from Mrs. Cohoon a verbal assignment of the unexpired term. On 23 July, 1906, F. E. Cohoon and her husband executed to the plaintiff a written assignment of the lease.\nIt appears, however, that on 21 May, 1906, F. E. Cohoon delivered to the defendant the written assignment of the lease which had been made to Abner Alexander on 30 July, 1903, with the following endorsement: \u201cWe hereby transfer all our right and title and interest in this lease t\u00f3 Lula Morris.\u201d This is dated 21 May, 1906, and is signed \u201cF. E. Cohoon, per E. P. Cohoon, agent.\u201d It is admitted that the latter was the general agent for his wife, and that by virtue of such assignment defendant was in possession of the property.\nThe verbal assignment of the lease made to plaintiff was absolutely void, because, at the date thereof, 30 August, 1904, the lease had more than three years to run, and, therefore, such an interest in land could only have been assigned in writing. Eevisal, sec. 976. At the time of the written conveyance, dated 23 July, 1906, made by Mrs. Cohoon and husband to plaintiff, they had, on 21 May, 1906, assigned the unexpired term to defendant. As there was then only about nineteen months of the term remaining, it required no deed under seal or privy examination to effect a conveyance thereof. It could be assigned by parol. It is admitted that E. P. Cohoon Avas the general agent of his Avife in the management of her property, and his authority to act for his wife is not. contested. Under and by virtue of this assignment defendant has remained in possession of the leasehold estate up to this, time.\nWe cannot agree that the assignment is invalid because not Avritten on the original lease. The paper upon which it was. written referred to and fully described tbe lease and tbe property, and in using tbe words \u201cthis lease\u201d in tbe assignment tbe assignors plainly meant tbe original lease executed to Mrs. Ooboon by Winston Sikes. Upon tbe facts agreed we concur with bis Honor that plaintiff is not entitled to recover.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Rrowal J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. E. Alexander and ill. Majeile for plaintiff.",
      "17. M. Bond for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DORA S. ALEXANDER v. LULA MORRIS.\n(Filed 11 September, 1907).\n1. Lessor and Lessee \u2014 Parol Assignment \u2014 Statute of Frauds.\nA verbal assignment of an unexpired lease of land, to terminate more than three years from tbe date of tbe assignment, is void under tbe statute of frauds.\n2. Same \u2014 Evidence\u2014Lease\u2014Assignment\u2014-Endorsement.\nAn endorsement upon tbe written assignment of a lease, \u201cWe hereby transfer all our rights and title and interest in this lease,\u201d etc., means tbe original lease referred to and fully described therein.\nCivil actior to recover possession of a leasehold, tried before 17. B. Allen, J., and a jury, at Spring Term, 1907, of TYRRELL Superior Court. The Court adjudged, upon the facts agreed, that plaintiff was not entitled to recover. \u25a0 Plaintiff appealed.\nJ. E. Alexander and ill. Majeile for plaintiff.\n17. M. Bond for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0022-01",
  "first_page_order": 62,
  "last_page_order": 64
}