{
  "id": 8631209,
  "name": "J. M. FERGUSON et al. v. G. D. FERGUSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ferguson v. Ferguson",
  "decision_date": "1934-05-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "483",
  "last_page": "484",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "206 N.C. 483"
    }
  ],
  "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., 275",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 S. E., 415",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 N. C., 164",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658689
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/135/0164-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 S. E., 61",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 N. C., 611",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271614
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/171/0611-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 2203,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.467,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6033745596751008
    },
    "sha256": "02a0b50670dff8ece8dcddbad7b75285c59524f78b0488cfcfa6433140232bbc",
    "simhash": "1:8be46471673d026c",
    "word_count": 389
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:02.537957+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. M. FERGUSON et al. v. G. D. FERGUSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J\".\nDelivery of the deed being essential to its validity and the question having been put in issue by the pleadings, it would seem that the matter should have been submitted to the jury for determination. Lynch v. Johnson, 171 N. C., 611, 89 S. E., 61. Indeed, it may be doubted whether the defendant ever acquired title to the property under the deed in question, it appearing that the \u201cconditions precedent to the vesting of the title\u201d have not been met. Helms v. Helms, 135 N. C., 164, 47 S. E., 415. But, however this may be, the issue of delivery remains undetermined on the record.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J\"."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles Iiulchins for plaintiffs.",
      "Watson & Fonts for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. M. FERGUSON et al. v. G. D. FERGUSON.\n(Filed 2 May, 1934.)\nDeeds and Conveyances A e\u2014\nDelivery of a deed is essential to its validity, and where the pleadings and evidence raise the question of delivery, the court\u2019s refusal to submit an issue thereon entitles appellant to a new trial.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Schenclc, J., at October Term, 1933, of YANCEY.\nCivil action to quiet title and to remove cloud therefrom, or \u201cto kill a deed,\u201d as was said in Barbee v. Bumpass, 191 N. 0., 521, 132 S. E., 275.\nThe plaintiffs being feeble and desirous of providing for their care, maintenance and support in old age, executed a deed to a tract of land in Yancey County conveying the same to their nephew, G. D. Ferguson, upon certain \u201cconditions precedent to the vesting of the title,\u201d with which, it is alleged, the defendant has failed to comply, and further that said deed was never delivered to the grantee; wherefore plaintiffs bring their action under C. S., 1743, to quiet their title and to remove said deed as a cloud therefrom.\nThe jury found that the defendant had \u201cbreached the contract set out in the deed,\u201d but further found that such breach was \u201ccaused by the conduct of the plaintiffs.\u201d\nThe pleadings raise an issue as to the delivery of the deed, and the plaintiffs asked that such issue be submitted to the jury, which was declined by the court.\nFrom a judgment on the verdict adjudging that the plaintiffs take nothing by their action and the defendant recover his costs, the plaintiffs appeal, assigning errors.\nCharles Iiulchins for plaintiffs.\nWatson & Fonts for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0483-01",
  "first_page_order": 545,
  "last_page_order": 546
}