{
  "id": 8653004,
  "name": "J. D. SESSOMS et al. v. A. G. BAZEMORE and Wife, SYDNEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sessoms v. Bazemore",
  "decision_date": "1920-09-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "102",
  "last_page": "103",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "180 N.C. 102"
    }
  ],
  "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": "179 N. C., 553",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656836
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/179/0553-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 189,
    "char_count": 2108,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.488,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.788579576101283e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5324403082959663
    },
    "sha256": "b152a29f90334e3ec7c95324c94defb503e640aca01dc7cfbde687e5010057a6",
    "simhash": "1:b572bfe2024e94eb",
    "word_count": 349
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:30:08.757715+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. D. SESSOMS et al. v. A. G. BAZEMORE and Wife, SYDNEY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BEoice, J.\nThe due execution of the contract, including the privy examination of the feme defendant, is admitted in the pleadings. The tender of the purchase price within the time, and the plaintiff\u2019s readiness and ability to perform, and the identity of the land claimed as the subject-matter of the contract are also clearly established, and the question presented and chiefly argued before us is whether the language of the written contract is sufficiently definite to permit the reception of parol evidence to fit the description to the property claimed as the subject-matter.of the contract. On that question,- the decisions\u2018of our Court are in full support of his Honor\u2019s ruling in the admission of the testimony and the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed. Norton v. Smith, 179 N. C., 553; Lewis v. Murray, and authorities cited.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BEoice, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rogers & Williams and Winston & Matthews for plaintiff.",
      "Roswell G. Bridger and Stanly Winborne for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. D. SESSOMS et al. v. A. G. BAZEMORE and Wife, SYDNEY.\n(Filed 29 September, 1920.)\nContract\u2014 Option \u2014 Description of Band \u2014 Evidence \u2014 Identification \u2014 Equity \u2014 Specific Performance.\nAn option to sell the owner\u2019s only farm, described therein as \u201cmy farm,\u201d for a certain price, within a specified time upon the payment of the sum named, sufficiently describes the land to admit of parol evidence of identification of the subject-matter of the contract, in an action for specific performance by the purchaser.\nCivil actioN, tried before Devin, J., at April Term, 1920, of Hebt-eobd.\nThe action is for specific performance of a written contract to convey land, duly executed by defendant and bis wife, tbe pertinent portions of said contract being in terms as follows: \u201cI do hereby agree to sell my farm to Mr. J. D. Sessoms for $7,000 any time within 30 days. This the 3d day of October, 1917. If he pays me the money, me and my wife will make him a deed, or to whom he may direct.\nA. GL Bazemobe. .\n\u201c SydNEV Bazemobe.\u201d\nOn the issues presented in the pleadings, there was verdict for plaintiff. Judgment, and defendants excepted and appealed.\nRogers & Williams and Winston & Matthews for plaintiff.\nRoswell G. Bridger and Stanly Winborne for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0102-01",
  "first_page_order": 160,
  "last_page_order": 161
}