{ "id": 11275527, "name": "Richard Newsom & Mary his wife, et al. v. William Bufferlow", "name_abbreviation": "Newsom v. Bufferlow", "decision_date": "1830-06", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "379", "last_page": "382", "citations": [ { "type": "nominative", "cite": "1 Dev. Eq. 379" }, { "type": "official", "cite": "16 N.C. 379" } ], "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": "1 Johns. Ch. 240", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Johns. Ch.", "case_ids": [ 1975566 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "252" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/johns-ch/1/0240-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Johns. Ch 585", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Johns. Ch.", "case_ids": [ 1178134 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/johns-ch/2/0582-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 441, "char_count": 5490, "ocr_confidence": 0.315, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0792877431087248e-07, "percentile": 0.758833623118568 }, "sha256": "dcc745e6cefa31380baf0be42264fd5f34d65e0841fad0503512d9f120359e5e", "simhash": "1:305bd484d748827c", "word_count": 992 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:48:17.309620+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Richard Newsom & Mary his wife, et al. v. William Bufferlow," ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Hall, Judge.\n\u2014 It is altogether unnecessary to en quire. in this case, bow far Conns of Equity have gone, in carrying into effect written executory contracts, or varying them by parol evidence. Suffice it to say, that the reason why they have declined giving r'di-f in many aueli cases is, that the Plaintiff had a remedy at law. That reason is not applicable to executed contracts. la these cases, the Plaintiff'has no remedy at law 5 and unless a Court of Equity will give relitf, he can have no mb ess. For this reason, it is well settled, that a Court of Equity will reform a written executed contract like the present. And generally, where a clause is either inserted in a deed, or id omitted, through fraud or mistake, Equity will give relief. The authorities in support of Unu position, are collected in Newland on Contracts^ p. 346, and Sugden\u2019s Law of Vendors, p. 97.\u2014 The case of Gillespie & wife v. Moon (2 Johns. Ch 585) Is in point. There a deed was executed by mistake for two hundred and fiiiy acres of laud, wlvri it ought to have been for two hundred only. Parol evidence was let in to prove the mistake, although it was denied by the answer.. Upon the same subject, see Souverbye v. Arden (1 Johns. Ch. 240, 252) Getman v. Beardsly (2 John. Ch 275) and Lyman v. United Ins. Co. (Do. 630).\nHis Honor then recapitulated the facts of the case; and proceeded\nWithout recapitulating the testimony offered by the Plaintiffs in this case, it may be assumed as a iactr beyond rational doubt, that the courses of both tpacfs (lf jan(j9 instead of the one purchased of William .\u00f1rnis, were, through fraud, or to say the least of it, thrmigh-mistuke, inserted in the deed to Bufferlow. It is to be regretted, that the courses of the other tract of land have not been set forth in the bill, or otherwise made to appear to the Court. A reconveyance of that land, to be made by the Defendant, cannot be, for that reason, decreed at this time. To ascertain them, let a commission issue to the County Surveyor, to make a survey of that land, and ascertain the boundaries, with directions for him to return a plot and survey of ir to the nest term of this Court.; unless in the mean time, the parties agree upon the boundaries of the tract of land, which was intended to have been conveyed, viz. the laud which Webb purchased of William Amis i and let tht costs of tiiis suit be paid by the Defendant.\nPer Curiam.\n\u2014 Decree accordingly.", "type": "majority", "author": "Hall, Judge. Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Smwell, for \u00abhe Plaintiffs,", "Madger, for the Defendant," ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Richard Newsom & Mary his wife, et al. v. William Bufferlow,\nFrom Northompson.\nvje.ty yelfeveis \u00a1\u00abT!t-\u00ed! isiriakos, r.-\u00a1 well as agaimt fraud m .. dc-.\u00fc U1' \u00ab'jr.tr.-iot in \u00ab'iling ; and pvnl cvMenso is ;.Jrn iss'ble to the w: fnioi, thouph it is denied in the answer ; ami this, when tl\u00abo \u00eds\u00ediii;iiiff-x'o\u00edes ' % .iiii,-msti?ely o\u2019i the ground of \u00a1.\u2019.istarc-.\nAs where tlie owner o\u00ed tvro adjoin\u00ediiij iiv.eis of hind, Iinniig .sold oat-oi'theuij in d- \u00ederionig the ii'etes ami bounds in a deed executed to the purcli;-. .or, by mistake included ooth tracts. Tae proof o\u00ed the; tnisiake be,in|r \u00a1./.i'.' .-s\u2019y satisfaclcry, the miik-e was dea.\u2019e.eu to re-convey \u00abo the .\u2019eu-ior the tract offend not intended to be can . eyed.\nThe FLiititifld hi their bill alleged, that Jesss IFtbh-, ilia first husband of the \u00bf*hdsU& - Wer*, and feu f*$m of others of the Plaintiffs, being the owner of one trac* of land, purchased an adjoining tract of one fVilliaia Amis, and to secure the purchase money, conveyed both tracts to one John D. Amis, in trust, in the usual form 5 that afterwards, with the consent of the trustee, he sold the land purchased of Amis, to the Defendant \u2014 but that when he executed a deed for the land so sold, through mistake or fraud, the courses of the deed of trust executed by Webb to John D. Amis, were copied, instead of those of the deed from William Amis to Webb, and thus that all the land which he, Webb, owned, was conveyed by that deed. The death of Webb \u2014 the intermarriage of the Plaintiff,. Newsom, and Mary, and the descent from Webb to the other Plaintiffs, were then alleged \u2014 and also the fact that the Plaintiff, claiming both tracts, had brought an ejectment (1 Law Cases 208) against the Plaintiff, Newsom, who was in possession under an as-signrhent of dower to his wife, and was pressing the same to a trial.\nThe bill prayed, that the Defendant might be enjoined from proceeding at law \u2014 and also that the mistake iu the deed might he corrected.\nTh<* Defendant, in his answer, positively affirmed? that the deed executed to him by Jesse Webb, in his lifetime, was in exact accordance with the understanding and design of the parties thereto, and that it conveyed all that was inteuded to be conveyed thereby, and no more.\nUpon the coming in of the answer, the injunction was \" dissolved with costs. Bui upon the motion of the Plaintiffs, the bill was held over as an original, and a replication to the answer was filed. Many depositions were taken ; but it is not necessary to state them in detail, as the Court, 01s the hearing, were clearly satisfied that the Plaintiffs had established every part of their casgt\nSmwell, for \u00abhe Plaintiffs,\ncited Heiikls v. ?loyal Ex. JlS'i. \u20ac.!. (I Fes. sen Ss9) Toicnskendv. \u00edVrangrooiii (p Ves 3.03) Haker v. Fayne (i Fes. sm. 45o) Simpson v. Vaughan (2.Vk. 32) Barn v. Burn (3 Fes 573) G-illes-\u2022aie v. J\u00edoon (2 Joints. G. ll. 585) Pitearme v. Ogbturne (2 Fes. 377).\nMadger, for the Defendant,\nreferred tu 3licit v. Jack* son (\u25a0! Brown C. G. 514) Woo\u00fcaun v. Hearn (7 Fes. 311)," }, "file_name": "0379-01", "first_page_order": 389, "last_page_order": 392 }