{
  "id": 8631838,
  "name": "MILLARD GUNTER v. B. G. GUNTER and ELMER GUNTER and Wife, VINA GUNTER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gunter v. Gunter",
  "decision_date": "1949-09-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "662",
  "last_page": "662",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "230 N.C. 662"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 116,
    "char_count": 1261,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "sha256": "f9f4ad2bf3c462aae2886689aa18f6ffe00c99c2c0c02e79d021bb1c9f91e304",
    "simhash": "1:618313ea2c1ab1f0",
    "word_count": 210
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:28:13.210119+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MILLARD GUNTER v. B. G. GUNTER and ELMER GUNTER and Wife, VINA GUNTER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Peb CuRiam.\nA mortgage on the locus, executed by plaintiff, was foreclosed. Defendant became the purchaser at the sale. Plaintiff now .seeks to have defendant declared trustee for his use and benefit by reason of a parol agreement entered into by them just prior to the sale. A careful examination of the testimony discloses that the contract of the parties, if made, constitutes nothing more than an oral option to repurchase. It is insufficient to charge defendant as trustee or to impress a trust upon his title. Hence the judgment entered must be\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Peb CuRiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Calvin\u2022 R. Edney and James E. Rector for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Carl R. Stuart for defendant afjpellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MILLARD GUNTER v. B. G. GUNTER and ELMER GUNTER and Wife, VINA GUNTER.\n(Filed 28 September, 1949.)\nMortgages \u00a7 40\u2014\nAn alleged parol agreement entered into by the parties just prior to foreclosure sale, which amounts to nothing more than an oral option to the mortgagor to repurchase, is insufficient to charge the purchaser at the sale as trustee or to impress a trust upon his title.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Moore, J., April Term, 1949, MadisoN.\nCivil action to impress a trust upon defendant\u2019s title to the real property described in the complaint.\nFrom judgment of nonsuit plaintiff appealed.\nCalvin\u2022 R. Edney and James E. Rector for plaintiff appellant.\nCarl R. Stuart for defendant afjpellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0662-01",
  "first_page_order": 718,
  "last_page_order": 718
}
