{
  "id": 8620337,
  "name": "R. L. BRINSON v. E. G. MORRIS et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brinson v. Morris",
  "decision_date": "1926-09-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "214",
  "last_page": "216",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 N.C. 214"
    }
  ],
  "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": "127 N. C., 114",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659246
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/127/0114-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 N. C., 200",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269681
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/171/0200-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 239,
    "char_count": 3783,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.487,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.98251466689106e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5381381308331104
    },
    "sha256": "d02a7e3dc813687ad2c1bc0ea09ca510d8e02500a91399556fba5020529912a8",
    "simhash": "1:a66675a886fec747",
    "word_count": 657
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:38.190415+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. L. BRINSON v. E. G. MORRIS et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nPlaintiff alleges tbat be is a resident of Guilford County, engaged in tbe business of distributing oil and gasoline throughout various sections of North Carolina under tbe style name of \u201cSouthern Oil Company\u201d; tbat on 16 March, 1925, be.contracted to buy, and did buy, from tbe defendants a lot or parcel of land situate in tbe town of Pittsboro, and took a deed therefor in tbe name of Southern' Oil Company, as grantee, when tbe same should have been made to \u201cE. L. Brinson, trading and doing business under tbe style name of Southern Oil Company,\u201d in accordance with tbe intention of tbe parties; and tbat tbe defendants are now claiming an interest in tbe land, by reason of said defective deed. Wherefore, plaintiff brings this suit to have said deed corrected and to remove tbe defendant\u2019s claim to tbe land as a cloud on plaintiff\u2019s title. C. S., 1743. See Robinson v. Daughtry, 171 N. C., 200.\nTbe defendants in their answer admit tbat E. L. Brinson is a resident of Guilford County, but say tbat they have no \u201cknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief\u201d as to whether be is \u201cconducting and operating bis business under tbe style name of Southern Oil Company.\u201d This, in effect, was a statutory denial of tbe fact, and sufficient to require proof of tbe allegation. C. S., 519; Person v. Leary, 127 N. C., 114. It was error, therefore, to render judgment for tbe plaintiff on tbe pleadings.\nOn tbe argument in this Court tbe > defendants demurred ore ienus, on tbe ground that tbe complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against tbe defendants. O. S., 511. But this must be overruled. It is alleged, inferentially at least, if not directly, that tbe defendants claim an interest in tbe land covered by tbe deed above mentioned. -In answer to this allegation, tbe defendants say: \u25a0\u201cIt is denied that tbe defendants have no claim thereto.\u201d\nXet tbe cause be remanded, to tbe end that further proceedings may be bad as tbe law directs and tbe rights of tbe parties require.\nError.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Siler & Barber for plaintiff.",
      "J. A. Spence for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. L. BRINSON v. E. G. MORRIS et al.\n(Filed 29 September, 1926.)\n1. Pleadings \u2014 Answer\u2014Issues\u2014Statutes\u2014Suits\u2014Cloud on Title \u2014 Equity.\nWhere the complaint in a suit to remove a cloud upon plaintiff\u2019s title to land (O. S., 1743), alleges that the plaintiff is the owner of the locus in quo, and asks for a reformation of his deed to the lands to show that by mutual mistake the name of the grantee therein was that of a private business enterprise he was conducting, and that accordingly the defendants claimed an interest therein, an allegation in the answer in reply that the defendant had no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether the plaintiff was conducting a business in the name of the grantee in the deed, is sufficient under our statute to raise the issue, and a judgment in plaintiff\u2019s favor upon the pleadings is reversible error. O. S., 519.\n2. Pleadings \u2014 Issues \u2014 Demurrer Ore Tenus in the Supreme Court \u2014 Equity \u2014 Cloud on Title.\nWhere the complaint in a suit to remove a cloud upon plaintiff\u2019s title to the locus in quo alleges that the defendants claimed an interest therein under a deed which plaintiff seeks to have reformed, and the defendants deny that they have no claim thereto, it is sufficient to raise the issue at' least inferentially, and defendants\u2019 demurrer ore tenus in the Supreme Court to the sufficiency of the complaint to state a cause of action, will be denied.\nAppeal by defendants from Granmer, J., at August Term, 1926, of Chatham.\nCivil action to reform deed and remove defendants\u2019 claim as cloud on plaintiff\u2019s title.\nFrom a judgment on tbe pleadings in favor of plaintiff, tbe defendants appeal, assigning error.\nSiler & Barber for plaintiff.\nJ. A. Spence for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0214-01",
  "first_page_order": 288,
  "last_page_order": 290
}