{
  "id": 8621951,
  "name": "J. GOLDMAN & COMPANY, Inc., v. TRANNIE CRANK, SUSIE CRANK, W. D. TAYLOR et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "J. Goldman & Co. v. Crank",
  "decision_date": "1931-02-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "384",
  "last_page": "385",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "200 N.C. 384"
    }
  ],
  "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": "77 S. E., 233",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 N. C., 430",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271190
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/161/0430-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 232,
    "char_count": 4595,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.446,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.34652618743409364
    },
    "sha256": "42024b8c4c209ae1298f306d90c1cf8d8fd7eba4c73d13960f2b72ecdf2b49fe",
    "simhash": "1:9d4fc80175b7e368",
    "word_count": 791
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:42.579520+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. GOLDMAN & COMPANY, Inc., v. TRANNIE CRANK, SUSIE CRANK, W. D. TAYLOR et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nTbe principle on which it is uniformly held in this State that parol testimony is not admissible as evidence to contradict or alter tbe terms of a written instrument, in an action between tbe parties to tbe instrument, is well settled. Lytton Mfg. Co. v. House Mfg. Co., 161 N. C., 430, 77 S. E., 233. This principle is applicable in tbe instant case, for tbe plaintiff, although not a party to the bill of sale, is claiming under tbe contract between tbe defendants, Trannie Crank and Susie Crank, and tbe defendant, W. D. Taylor.\nIt is immaterial that tbe provisions of C. S., 1013, known as tbe \u201cBulk Sales Statute,\u201d were not complied with in tbe instant case. If tbe statute was applicable to tbe sale of tbe sboe shop, it does not follow that tbe defendant, W. E. Taylor, as purchaser of tbe \u201cCrank Sboe Sbop,\u201d became personally liable for tbe debts of tbe defendants, Trannie Crank and Susie Crank, tbe vendors, contracted by them in carrying on their business, as the result of noncompliance with its provisions. At most, the sale of the shop was void as to the plaintiff, who was a creditor of the vendors at the date of the sale.\nThere was no evidence at the trial of this action tending to show that the defendant, W. D. Taylor, is personally liable to plaintiff, on the account, for articles of personal property sold and delivered by plaintiff to the defendants Trannie Crank and Susie Crank. There is, therefore, no error in the judgment dismissing the action as to the defendant, W. D. Taylor. The judgment is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McMullan & LeRoy for plaintiff.",
      "M. B. Simpson for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. GOLDMAN & COMPANY, Inc., v. TRANNIE CRANK, SUSIE CRANK, W. D. TAYLOR et al.\n(Filed 18 February, 1931.)\n1. Evidence J a \u2014 Party claiming under contract may not introduce parol evidence contradicting the terms of the written instrument.\nOne who claims under a written contract, though not a party thereto, is bound by its terms, and may not introduce parol evidence contradicting the provisions of the written instrument.\n2. Fraudulent Conveyances A e \u2014 Purchaser of hulls of property of insolvent is not liable for insolvent\u2019s debts in absence of agreement.\nThe vendors of a shoe shop sold their business under a written agreement that they, the vendors, would pay the outsanding obligations of the business. One of the creditors of the business at the time of the transfer sued to recover from the purchaser the amount of the indebtedness, and offered evidence tending to contradict the writing and holding the purchaser liable: Held,, the parol evidence is inadmissible, and the question of whether the built-sales statute had been complied with was immaterial, C. S., 1013, since under the provisions of the statute the creditor, at most, would be entitled to have the transfer set aside, but not to hold the purchaser personally liable.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Harris, J., at November Term, 1930, of Pasquotank.\nAffirmed.\nThis is an action.to recover on an account for articles of personal property sold and delivered, during the year 1928, by plaintiff to defendants, Trannie Crank and Susie Crank, and used by said defendants in carrying on their business known as \u201cCrank\u2019s Shoe Shop.\u201d\nFrom judgment by default final that plaintiff recover of said defendants the amount of said account, there was no appeal.\nOn 10 May, 1930, the defendants, Trannie Crank, and Susie Crank, sold their shoe shop to the defendant, ~W. D. Taylor. It is alleged in the complaint that the said defendant, W. D. Taylor, agreed with the defendants, Trannie Crank and Susie Crank, that he would pay the account due at the date of said sale to the plaintiff, as part of the purchase price for said shoe shop. This allegation is denied in the answer of the defendant, W. D. Taylor.\nThe bill of sale for said shoe shop, which is in writing, was offered in evidence at the trial by the plaintiff. It is provided therein that the defendants, Trannie Crank and Susie Crank, vendors, shall pay \u201call bills then due by the shop.\u201d Plaintiff offered parol testimony tending to show that defendant, W. D. Taylor, agreed to pay the bill due to the plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint.\nIt is further alleged in the complaint that the defendants, Trannie Crank and Susie Crank, failed to comply with the provisions of C. S., 1013, known as tbe \u201cBulk Sales Statute,\u201d prior to tbe sale of said sboe sbop to tbe defendant, W. D. Taylor. There was no evidence at tbe trial tending to show such compliance.\nFrom judgment dismissing tbe action as to tbe defendant, W. -D. Taylor, plaintiff appealed to tbe Supreme Court.\nMcMullan & LeRoy for plaintiff.\nM. B. Simpson for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0384-01",
  "first_page_order": 452,
  "last_page_order": 453
}