{
  "id": 8603857,
  "name": "JOHN EVANS and Wife, LAURA EVANS, v. W. S. COWAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Evans v. Cowan",
  "decision_date": "1927-09-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "273",
  "last_page": "275",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 N.C. 273"
    }
  ],
  "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": "191 N. C., 589",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630491
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0589-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 N. C., 5",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 N. C., 90",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651815
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/155/0090-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 288,
    "char_count": 4489,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.475,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1974519919053868e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5928756850302855
    },
    "sha256": "558b3e53bff9551fb484178e1d03e31f21d3b8bd0371ae4afe2d427a1bce4dec",
    "simhash": "1:2a1049ad3ea912b8",
    "word_count": 784
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:29.544042+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN EVANS and Wife, LAURA EVANS, v. W. S. COWAN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROGDEN, J.\nThe merit of this appeal involves the sole question as to whether or not there was sufficient evidence of mistake or fraud to be submitted to the jury. The only evidence bearing upon the question is the testimony of plaintiff, Laura Evans. She testified both ways upon tbe subject. In one portion of ber testimony sbe said: \u201cAfter we bad our bargain witb Winbrow be came back there and read tbe contract.\u201d At another time sbe testified that sbe bad no conversation witb Win-brow, tbe agent of defendant. However, it appears that sbe further testified that there was a misreading of tbe deed to ber at tbe time of ber signature, and that tbe defendant and bis agent were present. Tbe defendant Cowan denied that be was present, and Mr. Taylor, tbe justice of tbe peace, denied that there was any false reading of tbe deed.\nConflicting statements of a witness in regard to a material or vital fact do not warrant a withdrawal of tbe case from tbe jury. Such inconsistencies only affect tbe credibility of tbe witness, and it is tbe function of tbe jury to determine whether any weight or what weight shall be given to tbe testimony. Shell v. Roseman, 155 N. C., 90; Christman v. Hilliard, 167 N. C., 5; Smith Coach Line, 191 N. C., 589.\nWe bold, upon tbe record, that there was sufficient evidence to be submitted to tbe jury, and tbe judgment is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROGDEN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bridger & Ely and Winston, Matthews & Kenney for plaintiffs.",
      "Craig & Pritchett for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN EVANS and Wife, LAURA EVANS, v. W. S. COWAN.\n(Filed 28 September, 1927.)\nEvidence \u2014 Questions for Jury \u2014 Contradictory Testimony of One Witness \u2014Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Equity \u2014 Reformation of Instruments\u2014 Fraud or Mistake.\nWhere a timber deed is sought to be corrected for including erroneously other than cypress timber which alone was intended to have been conveyed, the testimony of one witness upon the question involved, though contradictory thereon, raises a question for the determination of the jury upon the issue of fraud or mistake.\nCivil actioN before Moore, Special Judge, at May Term, 1927, of Bertie.\nThis was au action instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendant for the correction of a timber deed, executed by plaintiffs and delivered to the defendant.\nIt was alleged in the complaint that the contract between the parties was to the effect that the plaintiffs would sell to the defendant only the merchantable cypress timber growing and standing on or about four acres of land in the mill pond. Thereafter the defendant had a deed prepared, which included \u201call the timber of every kind and size in swamp at high water mark,\u201d upon a tract of land containing about 200 acres. John Evans died pending the suit, but he and his wife, Laura Evans, held title to the land upon which the timber stands by entireties.\nThe plaintiffs further alleged \u201cthat said deed and contract had not been drawn in accordance with the bargain had with W. S. Cowan (the defendant), and that they had been tricked and deceived into signing said paper-writing, and that it did not contain their contract.\u201d\nThe evidence tended to show that the b\u00e1rgain was made by the plaintiffs with one Winbrow, agent of defendant.\nPlaintiff testified: \u201cAfter we had our bargain with Winbrow, he came back there and read the contract. Mr. Taylor, Mr. Winbrow and Mr. Cowan came. I don\u2019t know who wrote the paper. I 'don\u2019t know what Winbrow said the first time about having the timber paper written. When they came back they had a paper and Mr. Taylor read it. There was nothing in the paper but cypress \u2014 that is all they read to me. . . . Taylor read the contract. Winbrow was there. He was the one that came and made the bargain. ... I can\u2019t read and write. I signed the deed. I can write my name. I signed the name to the complaint. . . . Mr. Taylor told me that the deed only contained cypress. Yes, Cowan and Winbrow were there. He told me it contained nothing but cypress and I signed it. . . . Cowan was at my house at the time the deed was signed. I tell the jury that he was there when it was read.\u201d Taylor was the justice of the peace who took the acknowledgment of plaintiffs.\nPlaintiff further testified: \u201cI didn\u2019t say that Winbrow came to me and talked to me about buying the timber. I had no conversation with him. My husband did. I didn\u2019t hear it. Winbrow said nothing to me. He came to see my husband. My husband told me he'was going to sell.\u201d\nFrom judgment for plaintiff, assessing damages at $50, the defendant appealed.\nBridger & Ely and Winston, Matthews & Kenney for plaintiffs.\nCraig & Pritchett for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0273-01",
  "first_page_order": 341,
  "last_page_order": 343
}