{
  "id": 8628443,
  "name": "ORANGE COUNTY BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. SOUTHGATE JONES and Wife, NANCY G. JONES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Orange County Building & Loan Ass'n v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1938-06-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "30",
  "last_page": "31",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "214 N.C. 30"
    }
  ],
  "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": "159 S. E., 14",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 N. C., 59",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622336
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/201/0059-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 166,
    "char_count": 1827,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.485,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.417441169658951e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2771785150408383
    },
    "sha256": "a7542be4c35519d0b9beffe2471f3fef82653253b4d3159ebc0043674f56d240",
    "simhash": "1:555bbfc86a498974",
    "word_count": 293
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:13.292364+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ORANGE COUNTY BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. SOUTHGATE JONES and Wife, NANCY G. JONES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Ctjexam.\nTbe legal principles involved in tbis case are -very thoroughly discussed in Bateman v. Sterrett, 201 N. C., 59, 159 S. E., 14, and in tbis case there is a full citation of authority which we think substantially covers tbe controverted principles of law in tbe present case. We have examined chapter 529, Public Laws of 1933 \u2014 Code 1935, see. 437 (a) \u2014 and find no constitutional difficulty in its application to tbe facts of tbis ease. We think all tbe substantial rights of tbe parties have been sufficiently protected in tbe cited statute, and its application constitutes no impairment of tbe obligation of plaintiff's contract. Plaintiff, having set tbe statute in motion by its foreclosure sale, neglected to bring action upon tbe note within one year thereafter, and tbis action is therefore barred.\nTbe judgment is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Ctjexam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. J. Phipps and Bonner D. Sawyer for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "J. S. Patterson and Brawley & Gant for defendants, appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ORANGE COUNTY BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. SOUTHGATE JONES and Wife, NANCY G. JONES.\n(Filed 15 June, 1938.)\nConstitutional Law \u00a7 22: Limitation of Actions \u00a7 1: Mortgages \u00a7 36\u2014\nCh. 529, Public Laws of 1933, providing a one-year limitation for actions for deficiency judgments after foreclosure, protects all substantial rights of the parties and its application held not unconstitutional as impairing the obligations of the contract.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Bone, J., at October Term, 1937, of Orange.\nAffirmed.\nTbe plaintiff sued to recover a deficiency judgment upon a note secured by a mortgage deed upon certain land, after foreclosure. More tban one year bad elapsed after tbe mortgage sale, and tbe defendants pleaded tbe statute of limitations \u2014 chapter 529, Public Laws of 1933; Code 1935, sec. 437 (a).\nFrom an adverse judgment, plaintiff appealed.\nL. J. Phipps and Bonner D. Sawyer for plaintiff, appellant.\nJ. S. Patterson and Brawley & Gant for defendants, appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0030-01",
  "first_page_order": 98,
  "last_page_order": 99
}