{
  "id": 8619830,
  "name": "JOHN A. WILLIS and Wife, NORA WILLIS, v. HENRY WILLIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Willis v. Willis",
  "decision_date": "1955-09-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "597",
  "last_page": "598",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "242 N.C. 597"
    }
  ],
  "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": "167 S.E. 72",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 N.C. 825",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621217
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/203/0825-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 S.E. 721",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N.C. 784",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619550
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0784-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 S.E. 339",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N.C. 262",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655968
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/183/0262-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 182,
    "char_count": 2604,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.588,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.6809432255894035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.35758300966581447
    },
    "sha256": "48e566e05dbb27dd8b59e072ab508c35ec54d0593ecbce210c18dafa004dc3fc",
    "simhash": "1:d1c290ae3d0781fa",
    "word_count": 447
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:51:17.837681+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "WinboRNE and Higgins, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN A. WILLIS and Wife, NORA WILLIS, v. HENRY WILLIS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Cueiam.\nThe determinative issue, whether defendant agreed to pay plaintiffs for the two lots as alleged, was resolved by the jury in plaintiffs\u2019 favor. Parol evidence was competent to show the actual consideration for the deed. Pate v. Gaitley, 183 N.C. 262, 111 S.E. 339. The statute of frauds, G.S. 22-2, does not apply to an executed contract, such as that here involved. Keith Bros. v. Kennedy, 194 N.C. 784, 140 S.E. 721; Baucom v. Bank, 203 N.C. 825, 167 S.E. 72. We find no prejudicial error in the conduct of the trial.\nNo error.\nWinboRNE and Higgins, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lewis & Bouse for plaintiffs, appellees.",
      "C. W. Beaman and K. A. Pittman for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN A. WILLIS and Wife, NORA WILLIS, v. HENRY WILLIS.\n(Filed 21 September, 1955.)\n1. Evidence \u00a7 40\u2014\nParol evidence held competent to show that the actual consideration for a deed to two lots was an agreement of the grantee to construct a house on each lot and to pay to grantors, so long as either of them lived, the rental from one of the houses.\n2. Frauds, Statute of, \u00a7 12\u2014\nPlaintiffs conveyed to defendant two lots under an agreement that defendant should construct a house on each lot and pay to plaintiffs the rental value from one of the houses. Held: The statute of frauds does not apply to the executed contract. G.S. 22-2.\nWinborne and Higgins, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by defendant from Fountain, Special Judge, May Term, 1955, of Pitt.\nCivil action to recover alleged consideration for land conveyed by plaintiffs to defendant.\nPlaintiffs, by proper deed, conveyed two vacant lots to defendant. Defendant paid no consideration therefor at or prior to the delivery of the deed.\nPlaintiffs alleged that the consideration was defendant\u2019s agreement to build a house on each lot, to be rented, and to pay over to plaintiffs, so long as plaintiffs or either of them lived, the rental from one of the houses; that defendant constructed the two houses; that each was rented for $50.00 per month, beginning 1 June, 1954; that defendant has failed and refused to pay over the rents from one of the houses as agreed; and that plaintiffs were entitled to recover from defendant $50.00 per month from 1 June, 1954.\nDefendant denied that he made the agreement alleged by plaintiffs, averring that the conveyance was a deed of gift; and defendant pleaded the statute of frauds, G.S. 22-2.\nUpon issues arising on these pleadings, the jury found for plaintiffs. Judgment for plaintiffs was entered on the verdict. Defendant appealed.\nLewis & Bouse for plaintiffs, appellees.\nC. W. Beaman and K. A. Pittman for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0597-01",
  "first_page_order": 639,
  "last_page_order": 640
}