{
  "id": 8627697,
  "name": "C. I. T. CORPORATION v. T. B. DRAKE and C. A. BURGESS",
  "name_abbreviation": "C. I. T. Corp. v. Drake",
  "decision_date": "1929-05-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "162",
  "last_page": "163",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "197 N.C. 162"
    }
  ],
  "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": 150,
    "char_count": 1871,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.444,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08,
      "percentile": 0.34067623247532963
    },
    "sha256": "c91b4794d210ce078256db80e1802c847f68cec61cd2e17a308f20d13cf0a39a",
    "simhash": "1:cc9c893546dc99e9",
    "word_count": 319
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:44.780576+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. I. T. CORPORATION v. T. B. DRAKE and C. A. BURGESS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cubiam.\nThis is an action to recover possession of a motor car. The plaintiff alleges that on 9 June, 1928, the Asbeville Overland-Knigbt, Incorporated, sold and delivered a Whippet coupe to T. B.\u2018 Drake upon a conditional sales contract which was duly recorded in Buncombe County; that on 29 June, 1928, the plaintiff for value bought the note which Drake had executed to secure a part of the purchase price, before its maturity and without notice of any equities against the collection of the note; that after Drake\u2019s conviction for a breach' of the prohibition laws the car was sold by the sheriff of Iredell County to the defendant Burgess. It is alleged further that the sale was illegal and that the only interest Burgess acquired, if any, was the interest of Drake. Drake has never been served with summons and is not a party to the action. The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground of an improper joinder of parties and causes of action. The demurrer was overruled and Burgess excepted and appealed.\nThere is really only one defendant; and since the demurrer admits the . allegations in the complaint it is obvious that there is no error in the judgment.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cubiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lewis & Lewis for appellant.",
      "Pharr & Currie for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. I. T. CORPORATION v. T. B. DRAKE and C. A. BURGESS.\n(Filed 1 May, 1929.)\nPleadings D lb \u2014 Where only one defendant is served with summons and the action is against him solely, demurrer for misjoinder properly overruled.\nWhere an action is instituted against two defendants and only one of them is served with summons and the action is solely against the one served and this appears from the face of the complaint, a demurrer for misjoinder of parties and causes of action is properly overruled.\nAppeal by C. A. Burgess from a judgment-of Harding, J., overruling a demurrer to the. complaint. From MecicleNBueg.\nAffirmed.\nLewis & Lewis for appellant.\nPharr & Currie for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0162-01",
  "first_page_order": 226,
  "last_page_order": 227
}