{
  "id": 8698599,
  "name": "SARAH V. YOUNG v. GEORGE L. PHIFER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Young v. Phifer",
  "decision_date": "1875-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "529",
  "last_page": "530",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "72 N.C. 529"
    }
  ],
  "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": 222,
    "char_count": 2981,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.431,
    "sha256": "74237cbf6c8f9835c1ebfedaa9608aeadc8de7df7523ced0f101f5f733c75fbe",
    "simhash": "1:5f649c85c62516ef",
    "word_count": 524
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:28:46.712943+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SARAH V. YOUNG v. GEORGE L. PHIFER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Peaeson, C. J.\nThe motion for judgment upon complaint and answer was put on the ground that the answer was \u201c sham pleading \u201d to gain time. The answer can, in no sense of the word, be called \u201csham.\u201d It avers \u201cthe defendant has conveyed all the land that he agreed to convey.\u201d This directly makes an issue as to the right of the plaintiff to a specific performance. But the allegation of a mistake in respect to the number of acres is not controverted, and is taken to be true. Upon this state of facts, the defendant relies upon the statute of limitations, and thus forces the plaintiff to rely upon C. C. P., secs. 34-90, \u201cwithin three years\u201d by way of replication. So, instead of \u201csham pleading,\u201d the answer makes an important question, and a very interesting one, involving the construction of O. C. P., in respect to a provision, which is unusual in the legislation in this State.\nThe sub-section (9) is in these words, \u201c Action for relief on the ground of fraud, in cases which heretofore were solely cognizable by Courts of Equity. The cause of action in such cases net t\u00f3 Toe deemed to lime accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting fraud.\nThe point made is this: Does the refusal of a party to correct a mutual mistake, constitute fraud within the meaning of this sub-section, or is it necessary to charge that the defendant procured the Surveyor to make a false estimate of the number of acres, or that the defendant at the time, when he received payment of the purchase money, had knowledge of the fact that the tract conveyed did not contain the number of acres? upon the basis of which the payment was made, which fraud the plaintiff did not discover.\nHis Honor, upon the motion, was not called upon to decide this question, but it is clear he could not treat the answer which raised it \u201c as sham pleading\u201d \u2014 and it may suggest to the plaintiffs\u2019s attorney the necessity for amending the complaint, if he can do so consistently with the facts; if not, he must meet the question upon the ground that one who refuses to correct a mutual mistake, after the expiration of three years is guilty of fraud, within the meaning of this sub-section.\nHo error.\nPee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Peaeson, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wilson d\u00bf Son, for appellant.",
      "Montgomery, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SARAH V. YOUNG v. GEORGE L. PHIFER.\nAn answer, in an action for specific performance, or to correct an alleged mistake in a deed which avers that \u201c the defendant has conveyed, all the land he agreed-.to convey,\u201d raises an important issue, and is not \u20181 sham \u201d pleading.\nCivil Action, to compel the defendant to correcta mistake in a deed, tried at Spring Term, 1874, of CabaeRUS Superior Court, before his Honor, Logan, J.\nAll the facts necessary to present the points decided in this Court, are stated in the opinion of the Chief Justice.\nOn the trial below, the plaintiff moved for judgment against the defendant for the facts stated in the opinion, which motion being refused, the plaintiff appealed.\nWilson d\u00bf Son, for appellant.\nMontgomery, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0529-01",
  "first_page_order": 539,
  "last_page_order": 540
}