{
  "id": 2083739,
  "name": "JOSEPH H. CARDWELL, Administrator of THOMAS F. M. COYLE, v. WILLIAM MEBANE, JOHN H. COYLE and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cardwell v. Mebane",
  "decision_date": "1873-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "485",
  "last_page": "488",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "68 N.C. 485"
    }
  ],
  "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": 319,
    "char_count": 5496,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.415,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.630202327013342e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5274848070292901
    },
    "sha256": "d82f564bc51858b44602df2409f0dd73b826e0ea835b175c2477a9261a20dcf4",
    "simhash": "1:497acc7110b878c1",
    "word_count": 973
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:26:25.985368+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOSEPH H. CARDWELL, Administrator of THOMAS F. M. COYLE, v. WILLIAM MEBANE, JOHN H. COYLE and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Peakson, C. J.\nThe \u201ctax lists\u201d were not competent evidence to show the value of the land, as the assessors were not witnesses in the case, sworn and subject to cross-examination in the presence of the jury. So his Honor committed no error in rejecting the \u201ctax lists \u201d as inadmissible for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter therein set out. But we are of opinion that the \u201c tax lists \u201d ought to have been admitted in another view of the subject. \u201c Every fact \u201d is admissible in evidence, provided it be relevant; for illustration, a record, i. e., the fact of there being such a record, is evidence against the world, but it only imports absolute verity of its contents, as against parties and privies; all others are heard to say \u201c res inter alias acta.\u201d\nIn regard to the \u201c tax lists,\u201d it is a fact that the tract of land had been assessed at $5,000, and the question is as to the relevancy of that fact. These young men say \u201c our father asked us $5,000 for the land, being away out in Florida.\u201d We paid him the money and took a deed from him and our mother, the same being duly, legally and in good faith conveyed for the consideration named in said deed;\u201d and in reply to the suggestion that the pretence of having paid $5,000 for the land \u201c runs over the mark,\u201d for' that in fact the land was not worth more than $3,000; they offer to show, as a matter of fact speaking for itself, that by the tax lists, at the date of the deed and before the war, the-land was assessed at the value of $5,000, which fact, they urge, is relevant to show, probable cause on their part to believe, that the land was of that value as represented by their father, and is explanatory of the circumstance that they paid that price, confiding in the representation of their father.\nIn support of this view it may be said, an insurance agent \u2022on our wishing to invest money on mortgage, looks to the tax lists as a means of information; for property is seldom assessed to\u00ae high. The mere fact that this land was entered \u25a0on the tax lists as of the value of $5,000 is evidence against everybody of that fact, and we are of opinion that in repelling a charge of fraud resting among other circumstances on the allegation that the pretended price paid exceeded very much the value of the land, the defendants ought to have been allowed to prove this fact, to pass for what it was worth in the estimation of the jury.\nError.\nPee. Curiam.\nVenire de novo.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Peakson, C. J. Pee. Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Scales & Scales, for plaintiff.",
      "Dillard, Gilmer & Smith, for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOSEPH H. CARDWELL, Administrator of THOMAS F. M. COYLE, v. WILLIAM MEBANE, JOHN H. COYLE and others.\n\u201cTax lists\u201d are'not admissible for thepurpose of proving the truth of facts therein set out. \u201c Tax lists \u201d as an independent fact, when relevant, are admissible as evidence of such fact; and in repelling a charge of fraud resting among other circumstances on the allegation, that the pretended price paid for a tract of land exceeded very much its value, it is competent to prove the fact that it was entered at a certain value on the \u201c tax lists.\u201d\nPetition before the Clerk of the Superior Court of Rock\u2022ingham county, by the plaintiff as administrator of Thomas E. M. Coyle, for a license to sell the land described in the petition, situate in said county, and to make the proceeds assets to pay the debts of his intestate.\nThe defendants, John H. Coyle and Cornelius Coyle, sons of the plaintiff\u2019s intestate, presented their affidavit, claiming said land as conveyed to them by deed upon a valuable consideration, and upon filing said affidavit, the said John H. Coyle and Cornelius Coyle were admitted to defend; and thereupon, the plaintiff filed his affidavit, alleging that the deed made by his intestate to defendants, John H. Coyle and Cornelius Coyle, was made with intention to defraud his creditors, and with a knowledge of such intention on the part of said defendants. And an issue of title having been joined between the said Joseph H. Cardwell, Administrator aforesaid, plaintiff, and the said John H. Coyle and Cornelius Coyle, defendants, -the cause was put upon the docket for trial at the next Term of the Superior Court, of said county, and was tried before his Plonor, A. W. Tourgee, at Rockingham Superior Court, Fall Term, 1872.\nOn the trial, the plaintiff offered evidence to show that whilst the deed recited a consideration of $5,000 paid for the land, the land had never been rated in market at more than $3,000, and that the defendants, John H. Coyle and Cornelius Coyle, had themselves offered to sell the same for $3,500.\nIn explanation of this, the said defendants made oath that they had paid five thousand dollars in money, as recited in the deed; that their father, the grantor, asked them that sum, and they thought it was worth that amount; that they lived in Florida at the time of the purchase and had not seen the land afterwards; and upon hearing from their agent in Rockingham county that this and all lands -were dull of sale and could not be sold at the price they had paid, they instructed their agent to sell at $3,500. The defendants, John IT. Coyle and Cornelius Coyle, in support of this defence, \u201c offered to show what the value of the land was at and before the making of the deed and also before the war, by lists of assessments for taxable purposes. The plaintiff objected to this and the Court sustained the objection,\u201d and excluded the evidence. Defendants excepted.\nVerdict and judgment for plaintiff. Appeal by defendants;\nScales & Scales, for plaintiff.\nDillard, Gilmer & Smith, for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0485-01",
  "first_page_order": 495,
  "last_page_order": 498
}