{
  "id": 8657092,
  "name": "SELECTA TAYLOR et al. v. LEVI B. WILSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. Wilson",
  "decision_date": "1914-09-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "81",
  "last_page": "82",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "168 N.C. 81"
    }
  ],
  "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": 191,
    "char_count": 2361,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.478,
    "sha256": "224321420d2f01d1862a93f003ffb18662f88e5835ee982a032f4d6d1ca85a6c",
    "simhash": "1:13a705bf730c2e46",
    "word_count": 396
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:05:21.378028+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SELECTA TAYLOR et al. v. LEVI B. WILSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee. Oueiam.\nTbe purpose of tbis action is to set aside a deed from Alex. Right and wife to defendant upon tbe ground tbat defendant failed to perform tbe conditions set out in tbe deed. Plaintiffs contend tbat defendant failed to provide support for Mary Right, Margaret Right, or Sallie Right, as required by tbe terms of tbe deed. Defendant alleges tbat be has furnished a reasonably good support for all of tbe beneficiaries according to tbe terms of tbe deed.\nMuch testimony was introduced. His Honor charged tbe jury:\n\u201cI charge you tbat if be failed to provide for these beneficiaries, or either of them, a reasonable support and proper care, considering their station and condition in life, tbat then be failed to comply with the contract which be entered into, and which, by accepting tbe deed, be stipulated in bolding tbe deed tbat be would, and tbat if be failed to comply with it, be would give up all right and interest conveyed by it, tbe said deed, and it should be declared void.\u201d\nWe think tbe issue involved is exclusively one of fact, and tbat it has been submitted to tbe jury fairly and correctly.\nIt is unnecessary to consider tbe question as to whether plaintiff can maintain tbis action, as tbe issue of fact has been decided against her.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee. Oueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "6r. J. Spence and Aydlett & Simpson for plaintiffs.",
      "Ward & Thompson and R. W. Turner for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SELECTA TAYLOR et al. v. LEVI B. WILSON.\n(Filed 16 September, 1914.)\nDeeds and Conveyances \u2014 Consideration\u2014Support\u2014Trial\u2014Instructions\u2014Actions.\nIn this action to declare a deed void for the failure of the grantee to perform the conditions therein stated to support certain beneficiaries in consideration therefor, it is held that the issues involved are those of fact, properly submitted to the jury under a correct instruction that the support of the beneficiaries should be a reasonable and proper one, considering their station and condition in life; and further, the issues having been answered adversely to plaintiff, the question becomes immaterial as to whether the action would lie.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Ferguson, J., at December Special Term, of CAMDEN.\nCivil action, tried up@n tbis issue:\n\u201cIs plaintiff tbe owner and entitled to tbe immediate possession of one undivided one-fourtb of tbe 36-acre tract of land? Answer: No.\u2019 \u201d\nFrom tbe judgment rendered, plaintiff appealed.\n6r. J. Spence and Aydlett & Simpson for plaintiffs.\nWard & Thompson and R. W. Turner for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0081-02",
  "first_page_order": 137,
  "last_page_order": 138
}