{
  "id": 8690384,
  "name": "JOHN N. BUNTING v. HENRY C. JONES, wife and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bunting v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1878-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "242",
  "last_page": "244",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "78 N.C. 242"
    }
  ],
  "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": 221,
    "char_count": 3957,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.456,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.014775307966741e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9063953149392108
    },
    "sha256": "ea6d5890719dc18161cce3c186bb7e6b0a25734d9a3b4071f0e8b27015f321ae",
    "simhash": "1:5ef02eff8caca4cc",
    "word_count": 710
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:04:18.240606+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN N. BUNTING v. HENRY C. JONES, wife and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reads, J.\nThe plaintiff purchased and paid for the land in question and had the deed made to defendant, Henry C. \u25a0Jones, under a yerbal agreement that the plaintiff was to hold the deed., and that concurrently with the taking the deed from the vendor to the defendant Henry C. Jones, he .and his wife were to execute a mortgage deed to the plaintiff, to secure the purchase money. The defendant Henry O. Jones did execute the mortgage deed and delivered it to \u25a0the plaintiff, but his wife, the feme defendant refused, to Join ; and this action is brought to recover judgment for the purchase money, and to have the land sold to satisfy it.\nThe plaintiff is entitled to his judgment and sale.\nThe defendants object to the sale for the reason that the deed which, was made to Henry C. Jones vested the title in him, although but for a moment, and thereby his wife the .feme defendant became invested with dower and homestead .rights. This is not so, for two reasons:\u2014\n1. The deed from the vendor to Jones, and his mortgage \u25a0to the plaintiff, were to be, and were, concurrent acts. And concurrent acts are to be considered as one act. The title \u25a0 did sest, but it did not rest, in Jones; but \u201clike the borealis ;raee, that flits \u2019ere you can point its place.\u201d And it was as if \u25a0the title had passed directly from the vendor to the plaintiff. But even if this ivere not so, and if the deed had been made and delivered to Jones, and he had made no mortgage to plaintiff, yet under the agreement aforesaid, and the plaintiff\u2019s money having paid for the land, there would have been an equity in the plaintiff which would have entitled him to call for the legal estate, unaffected by dower or homestead. It was not'intended to give -the defendant the land, and he paid nothing for it:- How then can he or his wife claim it? But if this were not so, still,\n' 2. The plaintiff\u2019s demand is for the purchase money ; as against which, homestead rights do not prevail.\nThe defendants insist that the plaintiff did not pay the purchase money, and thereby become substituted to the rights of the vendor; but that he (plaintiff) loaned the defendant the money with which to pay it, and that the plaintiff's demand is as for an ordinary debt. But the fact is-stated to be otherwise.\nWe have not mentioned the intervention of Sion H. Eogers, as it was not necessary for elucidation.\nThere is no error. This will be certified.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reads, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Geo, II. Snow, for plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. I. M. Argo and Battle Mordecai, for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN N. BUNTING v. HENRY C. JONES, wife and others.\nHomestead \u2014 Purchase Money \u2014 Wife\u2019s Interest.\n\u201cWhere the plaintiff purchased and paid for the land in question and had the deed made to the defendant J under a verbal agreement that the plaintiff was to hold the deed and that concurrently with taking the deed to J, he and his wife were to execute a mortgage to the plaintiff to secure the purchase money ; J did execute the mortgage but his wife refused to join ; Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the amount due and that the land be sold to \u25a0satisfy it.\nHeld further, that in such case, no title vested in J, and his wife acquired no dower or homestead rights.\nHeld further, that plaintiff\u2019s demand is for the purchase money, as .against which homestead rights do not prevail.\nCivil ActiON, tried at June Special Term, 1877, of Wake .'Superior Court, before Buxton, J.\nThis action was brought to recover the purchase.money for a house and lot in the City of Raleigh, and the defend.ants objected to the judgment rendered for the plaintiff in \u2022the Court below, for that, it was adjudged, that the title to -the same (which came to them in the manner set forth in \u25a0the opinion of this Court) was notin the defendant, Jones, .and that the premises be sold to satisfy the debt; and insisted that the judgment should have been only for the recovery of the debt. And from said judgment the defendants appealed.\nMr. Geo, II. Snow, for plaintiff.\nMessrs. I. M. Argo and Battle Mordecai, for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0242-01",
  "first_page_order": 258,
  "last_page_order": 260
}