{
  "id": 8622921,
  "name": "MARION MOORE, Administrator of MRS. SUSAN BELL, v. W. R. BRINKLEY and Wife, LILLIE E. BRINKLEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moore v. Brinkley",
  "decision_date": "1931-03-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "457",
  "last_page": "458",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "200 N.C. 457"
    }
  ],
  "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": "132 S. E., 796",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 N. C., 679",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631046
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0679-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 S. E., 349",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N. C., 44",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8596782
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0044-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 2518,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.467,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.984422067247863e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5026833610762635
    },
    "sha256": "593e1987ec4a531d55baee246b44e258652cecd94e81b8237871f1fbd5fbe5ee",
    "simhash": "1:667e2e04f7d0bc55",
    "word_count": 423
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:42.579520+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARION MOORE, Administrator of MRS. SUSAN BELL, v. W. R. BRINKLEY and Wife, LILLIE E. BRINKLEY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pek Cueiam.\nAll tbe findings of fact made' by tbe referee were supported by evidence introduced at tbe bearing before bim. There was, therefore, no error in tbe refusal of tbe trial judge to sustain plaintiff\u2019s exceptions to tbe findings of fact. Kenney v. Hotel Co., 194 N. C., 44, 138 S. E., 349.\nNor was there error in tbe refusal of tbe trial judge to sustain plaintiff\u2019s exceptions to tbe referee\u2019s conclusions of law. Plaintiff\u2019s intestate, contemporaneously witb tbe execution by defendants of tbe notes and mortgage involved in this action, for a valuable consideration, contracted and agreed witb tbe defendants that at her death tbe defendants should be absolutely released from any and all their indebtedness to her, or to her estate. Tbis contract is valid and enforceable against tbe plaintiff. Fawcett v. Fawcett, 191 N. C., 679, 132 S. E., 796. By tbe terms of tbis contract defendants are now tbe owners of tbe notes secured by tbe mortgage, certainly as against tbe plaintiff.\nWe find no error in tbe judgment. It is Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pek Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rouse & Rouse for plaintiff.",
      "Button & Greene and Shaw & J ones for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARION MOORE, Administrator of MRS. SUSAN BELL, v. W. R. BRINKLEY and Wife, LILLIE E. BRINKLEY.\n(Filed 11 March, 1931.)\n1. Wills B a \u2014 Agreement that upon death of obligee the obligor was to be released from liability on note is valid.\nA written agreement made with consideration contemporaneously with the execution and delivery of notes secured by a mortgage, that the obligor be absolutely released as to the obligee or her estate upon her death is valid.\n2. Appeal and Error J c \u2014 Findings of fact supported by evidence are conclusive on appeal.\nThe referee\u2019s findings of fact supported by evidence and approved by the trial court are conclusive on appeal to' the Supreme Court.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Lyon, Emergency Judge, at November Term, 1930, of Lenoie.\nAffirmed.\nThis action to recover on notes executed by tbe defendants, and payable to plaintiff\u2019s intestate, and for tbe foreclosure of tbe mortgage securing tbe payment of said notes, was beard on tbe report of tbe referee.\nTbe findings of fact and conclusions of law made by tbe referee were adverse to tbe contentions of tbe plaintiff.\nPlaintiff\u2019s exceptions to certain findings of fact and conclusions of law made by tbe referee were not sustained by tbe trial judge. Tbe report of tbe referee was confirmed in all respects.\nFrom judgment in accordance witb tbe report of tbe referee, plaintiff appealed to tbe Supreme Court.\nRouse & Rouse for plaintiff.\nButton & Greene and Shaw & J ones for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0457-01",
  "first_page_order": 525,
  "last_page_order": 526
}