{
  "id": 8608434,
  "name": "NAOMI McMILLAN LEDFORD v. HOLLY LEDFORD; J. FLAY LEDFORD and Wife, MARGARET W. LEDFORD; LOUISE LEDFORD WYATT and Husband, GUY E. WYATT; MARY GRACE LEDFORD HEMBY and Husband, FRANK H. HEMBY; HELEN BRUCE LEDFORD GRUBB and Husband, JACK GRUBB; SAM M. LEDFORD and Wife, CAROL LEDFORD; SARA BESS LEDFORD ORMAND and Husband, JACK ORMAND; A. B. LEDFORD and Wife, LOUISE CLARY LEDFORD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ledford v. Ledford",
  "decision_date": "1950-10-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "522",
  "last_page": "523",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "232 N.C. 522"
    }
  ],
  "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": "49 S.E. 2d 794",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 373",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12166095
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0373-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 163,
    "char_count": 2113,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.439,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20715339002389715
    },
    "sha256": "e17ae6fba57dd6226008e1e68c645e35ab9a5c5b1d08dfa10e23fde9e97ce672",
    "simhash": "1:7932c8b7508c374c",
    "word_count": 357
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:42:59.145817+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "NAOMI McMILLAN LEDFORD v. HOLLY LEDFORD; J. FLAY LEDFORD and Wife, MARGARET W. LEDFORD; LOUISE LEDFORD WYATT and Husband, GUY E. WYATT; MARY GRACE LEDFORD HEMBY and Husband, FRANK H. HEMBY; HELEN BRUCE LEDFORD GRUBB and Husband, JACK GRUBB; SAM M. LEDFORD and Wife, CAROL LEDFORD; SARA BESS LEDFORD ORMAND and Husband, JACK ORMAND; A. B. LEDFORD and Wife, LOUISE CLARY LEDFORD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nThe evidence as revealed by the record herein is insufficient to warrant the submission of the case to the jury on the question of mutual mistake.\nThe judgment of nonsuit is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Nao.mi McMillan Ledford in propria personcu",
      "Falls & Falls for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NAOMI McMILLAN LEDFORD v. HOLLY LEDFORD; J. FLAY LEDFORD and Wife, MARGARET W. LEDFORD; LOUISE LEDFORD WYATT and Husband, GUY E. WYATT; MARY GRACE LEDFORD HEMBY and Husband, FRANK H. HEMBY; HELEN BRUCE LEDFORD GRUBB and Husband, JACK GRUBB; SAM M. LEDFORD and Wife, CAROL LEDFORD; SARA BESS LEDFORD ORMAND and Husband, JACK ORMAND; A. B. LEDFORD and Wife, LOUISE CLARY LEDFORD.\n(Filed 18 October, 1950.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Bobbitt, J., at the March-April Term, 1950, of Cleveland.\nThis is a civil action to set aside a consent judgment and a deed of release signed by the plaintiff on the ground of mutual mistake on the part of the plaintiff and the defendants.\nIt appears from the record that J. F. Ledford, the late husband of the plaintiff, died on 20 March, 1947, leaving a last will and testament, from which the plaintiff dissented. She thereafter filed in the Superior Court of Cleveland County a petition for the allotment of dower.\nThe parties thereto compromised their differences and a consent judgment was entered and the plaintiff, in consideration of the sum of $15,000, paid to her by the defendants, executed a quitclaim deed to tbe defendants, on 27 October, 1947, as provided in the consent judgment.\nThe plaintiff thereafter made a motion in the cause to set aside the judgment entered in the proceeding signed by consent of her attorney. The motion was denied and the plaintiff appealed to this Court and the ruling of the lower court was upheld. See Ledford v. Ledford, 229 N.C. 373, 49 S.E. 2d 794.\nAfter the decision was rendered in the above case, this action was instituted.\nUpon the hearing below, at the close of all the evidence, the defendants renewed their motion for judgment as of nonsuit interposed at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, and the motion was allowed. Plaintiff appeals and assigns error.\nNao.mi McMillan Ledford in propria personcu\nFalls & Falls for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0522-02",
  "first_page_order": 570,
  "last_page_order": 571
}