{
  "id": 8657977,
  "name": "JANE COWAN v. GEORGINA COWAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cowan v. Cowan",
  "decision_date": "1920-03-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "695",
  "last_page": "695",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "179 N.C. 695"
    }
  ],
  "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": 97,
    "char_count": 1253,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.46,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.555273179232454e-08,
      "percentile": 0.34949141822554136
    },
    "sha256": "599792f7f4406d338ae8f9bae5df2828f2891aa5cfc11d13d6a63258d91db942",
    "simhash": "1:88d953bd0b12a689",
    "word_count": 212
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:12:15.491038+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JANE COWAN v. GEORGINA COWAN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nWe have carefully examined the record, and find no error.\nThe evidence as to the conduct of Mathis which was objected to upon the ground that the complaint alleged that the defendant, and not Mathis, had committed the fraud, was competent, as Mathis was acting for the defendant, and that the defendant was not taken by surprise is shown by the fact that he was introduced as a witness for the defendant.\nThere was ample evidence to support the allegations of the complaint, and the motion for judgment of nonsuit was properly denied.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Bayard Clark for plaintiff.",
      "Lyon & Lyon for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JANE COWAN v. GEORGINA COWAN\n(Filed 31 March, 1920.)\nPleadings \u2014 Fraud\u2014Allegations\u2014Evidence.\nIn an action to set aside a deed for fraud alleged to have been committed by defendant, evidence that another had committed the fraud while acting for the defendant is competent, when it appears that the defendant was not taken by surprise.\nAppeal by defendant from GcClvert, J., at the October Term, 1919, of Bladen.\nThis is an action to set aside certain deeds executed by the plaintiff to the defendant, her daughter-in-law, on the ground of fraud.\nThere was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant excepted and appealed.\nJ. Bayard Clark for plaintiff.\nLyon & Lyon for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0695-01",
  "first_page_order": 751,
  "last_page_order": 751
}