{
  "id": 8684251,
  "name": "THE FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK OF BALTIMORE v. THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Farmers & Merchants Bank of Baltimore v. Board of Aldermen of City of Charlotte",
  "decision_date": "1876-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "45",
  "last_page": "46",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "75 N.C. 45"
    }
  ],
  "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": "14 Barb., 273",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Barb.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 3070,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.481,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4376881310298396e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6525276184055518
    },
    "sha256": "a97255922c8966e7d5a61269a76ffee9c6178ab0d9698fd22575607fd290445d",
    "simhash": "1:b32bbb5016beed87",
    "word_count": 523
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:17:21.962704+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK OF BALTIMORE v. THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Settle, J.\nThe counsel' for both parties upon the argument here, stated that the sole question for this Court is\u2014 whether the answer is insufficient or frivolous ?\nThe alleged insufficiency is in that part of the answer which says that, \u201c the defendant has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief in regard to the truth of the allegations contained in the third section of the com-plaint; \u201d which third section is as follows: \u201cThat the same, (the note sued on,) was afterwards and before maturity, to-wit: .on the 12th of April, 1875, assigned and endorsed, for, value, by said Bank of Mecklenburg, to the plaintiff, a corporation under the laws of the United States.\u201d\nThe statute gives the defendant the alternative, either to deny the plaintiffs allegations, or to deny any knowledge or information thereof sufficient to form a belief. Bat. Rev., chap. 17, sec. 100.\nThe language of the Act can admit of but one construction ; and an answer in the latter form is not affected by section 127 of the same chapter.\nThis Court has held that an answer cannot be deemed frivolous when it raises a serious question or one worthy of consideration. Erwins v. Lowrey, 64 N. C. Rep., 321; Swepson v. Harvy, 66 N. C. Rep., 436.\nTo the same effect are the decisions from other States, upon the same language in the code.\n\u201c A denial of the allegations of the complaint, made in the form prescribed, i. e., of any knowledge or information thereof sufficient to form a belief, being allowed by the code, raises, when interposed, a sufficient issue.\u201d 2 Whitaker\u2019s Pr., section 176, and cases there cited. And in Caswell v. Bushnell, 14 Barb., 273, it is held that when a defendant in his answer which is sworn to, denies any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of an allegation in the complaint, the plaintiff cannot, on affidavits showing that the fact alleged was within the knowledge of the defendant, move to strike out the answer as sham, false and frivolous.\nThe judgment of the Superior Gourt is affirmed.\nLet this be certified, &c.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Settle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Shipp & Bailey, for appellant.",
      "Jones & Johnston, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK OF BALTIMORE v. THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE.\nA denial of the allegations of the complaint, made in the form prescribed, i. 6., of any knowledge or information thereof, sufficient to form a belief, being allowed by the Code of Civil Procedure, raises, when interposed, a sufficient issue; and such answer is not subject to the objection of being insufficient or frivolous.\n(The cases of Erwin v. Lowrey, 64 N. O. Rep. 3S1; Swepson v. Harvey, 66 N. C. Rep. 486, cited and approved.)\nCivil Action, upon a bond, heard before his Honor, Judge ScheNck, at Spring Term, 1876, of Mecklenburg Superior Court.\nThe plaintiff moved for judgment upon the ground that the answer filed was frivolous and irrelevant.\nThe facts necessary to an understanding of the case are substantially stated in the opinion of the Court.\nThe motion was overruled and th% plaintiff appealed.\nShipp & Bailey, for appellant.\nJones & Johnston, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0045-01",
  "first_page_order": 53,
  "last_page_order": 54
}