{
  "id": 8624638,
  "name": "FIDELITY SECURITY COMPANY v. C. M. HIGHT et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fidelity Security Co. v. Hight",
  "decision_date": "1937-01-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "117",
  "last_page": "118",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 N.C. 117"
    }
  ],
  "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": "209 N. C., 585",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221566
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0585-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 S. E., 732",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N. C., 585",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221566
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0585-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 180,
    "char_count": 1778,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2072375648155549
    },
    "sha256": "6e531097aadeef3ce1f9be441ef54bfa78f32455fad28f4ff90a44943378ea7f",
    "simhash": "1:6aa2cb02b851be91",
    "word_count": 299
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:14.990140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FIDELITY SECURITY COMPANY v. C. M. HIGHT et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nIt is not perceived wherein the present ease differs in principle from the case of Jones v. Franklin Estate, 209 N. C., 585, 183 S. E., 732. Moreover, it is conceded that since the levy of the assessment in the instant case, 3 November, 1931, holders of bank stock have been relieved of their double liability by act of Assembly, ch. 99, Public Laws 1935. So, unless the defendants were rendered liable by the original assessment, they cannot now be made liable therefor.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Basil M. Watkins and Brawley & Gantt for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Hedrick \u25a0& Hall for defendant Bettie Roney Dailey, appellee.",
      "W. S. Lockhart for defendants G. M. Bight, J. C. Kluttz, G. E. Qer-rard, J. B. Andrews, 0. B. Dillehay, and Mamie Osborne, appellees.",
      "A. H. Borland for defendant M. P. Harrell, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FIDELITY SECURITY COMPANY v. C. M. HIGHT et al.\n(Filed 6 January, 1937.)\nBanks and Banking \u00a7 16\u2014\nIn this action to reform a statutory stock assessment against trustees so as to render them personally liable, defendants\u2019 demurrers held properly sustained on authority of Jones v. Eranlclin Estate, 209 N. C., 585, and h eld further, such liability would have to be established prior to the effective date of ch. 99, Public Laws of 1935, relieving stockholders of double liability.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Harris, J., at May-June Term, 1936, of Duei-iaM.\nCivil action by plaintiff, as assignee of judgment for bank stock assessment, levied 3 November, 1931, against \u201cC. II. Morrow and ~W. H. Smith, Trustees,\u201d to reform same so as to hold the defendants liable therefor as the real owners of said bank stock at the time of the assessment.\nDemurrer ore terms interposed on the ground that no cause of action is stated in the complaint. Demurrer sustained. Plaintiff appeals.\nBasil M. Watkins and Brawley & Gantt for plaintiff, appellant.\nHedrick \u25a0& Hall for defendant Bettie Roney Dailey, appellee.\nW. S. Lockhart for defendants G. M. Bight, J. C. Kluttz, G. E. Qer-rard, J. B. Andrews, 0. B. Dillehay, and Mamie Osborne, appellees.\nA. H. Borland for defendant M. P. Harrell, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0117-01",
  "first_page_order": 183,
  "last_page_order": 184
}