{
  "id": 11255867,
  "name": "VINSON, JONES & FINCH, Inc. v. J. H. PUGH and J. FRANK WOOTEN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Vinson, Jones & Finch, Inc. v. Pugh",
  "decision_date": "1916-10-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "843",
  "last_page": "843",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "172 N.C. 843"
    }
  ],
  "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": 135,
    "char_count": 1647,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.436,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1471670164081693e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7679984431524772
    },
    "sha256": "a7791a75d703bf8a2d9191ede528e4de46a8e1ebd284b37667e4b83448cf8199",
    "simhash": "1:5f4222feb090c568",
    "word_count": 272
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:21:58.562423+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "VINSON, JONES & FINCH, Inc. v. J. H. PUGH and J. FRANK WOOTEN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per CueiaM.\nThe allegations of the complaint are so- very voluminous, and the liability of defendant \"Wooten depends so much upon his good faith in the discharge of the duty he assumed, that it is difficult to determine it without findings of facts. The complaint alleges and the demurrer admits that Wooten received a part of the purchase money and afterwards refused to deliver the deed, and \u201cthe defendant J. Frank Wooten unlawfully, and with the purpose and intent to hinder, delay, and defeat the plaintiff in its lawful recovery in this action, took said deed, draft, and statement, and with the advice and suggestion of his codefendant,. J ames H. Pugh, burned the same to prevent the plaintiff and the court from examining and using the same in the trial of this action.\u201d\nWe think his Honor properly overruled the demurrer, and required the defendant to answer.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per CueiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for plaintiff.",
      "T. G. Wooten and G. V. Oowp\u00e9r for defendant Wooten."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "VINSON, JONES & FINCH, Inc. v. J. H. PUGH and J. FRANK WOOTEN.\n(Filed 11 October, 1916.)\nPleadings \u2014 Demurrer\u2014Fraud\u2014Good Faith.\nIn this case the complaint alleged that one of the defendants, with the advice and suggestion of the other, unlawfully, with intent to hinder, delay, and defeat plaintiff\u2019s recovery, burnt certain deeds and papers, and it appearing that findings as to good faith were necessary for a proper determination, it is Held that the demurrer was properly overruled.\nCivil ACTION heard upon demurrer at March Term, 1916j of Sajvip-soN. A demurrer was interposed by defendant \"Wooten. The court, Bond, J., presiding, overruled the demurrer, and said defendant appealed.\nNo counsel for plaintiff.\nT. G. Wooten and G. V. Oowp\u00e9r for defendant Wooten."
  },
  "file_name": "0843-01",
  "first_page_order": 909,
  "last_page_order": 909
}