{
  "id": 8684593,
  "name": "CHARLES WHITE v. THOMAS D. HOLLY and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "White v. Holly",
  "decision_date": "1884-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "67",
  "last_page": "69",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "91 N.C. 67"
    }
  ],
  "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": "84 N. C., 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8692448
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/84/0314-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 N. C., 177",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277332
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/71/0177-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N. C., 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8692448
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/84/0314-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 N. C., 177",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277332
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/71/0177-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 295,
    "char_count": 4628,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.519,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.5375396842638506e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8131080229001768
    },
    "sha256": "393503b21057872bbe469ae6a02b4cba5bbc4ecdb9214f46b36ccaf818d1dfe4",
    "simhash": "1:bd0334e1b9dbcc31",
    "word_count": 791
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:07:30.396726+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CHARLES WHITE v. THOMAS D. HOLLY and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Merrimon, J.\nThe plaintiff brought this action to compel specific performance of a contract in writing whereby the defendant, Holly, agreed to .convey to the plaintiff the land mentioned in the complaint. To prove the contract as alleged, the plaintiff put in evidence two receipts of different dates for certain cotton, the agreed price of- which was, by the terms of the receipts, \u201c to go, as part payment, on the price of land he (the plaintiff) lives on,\u201d signed by the defendant Holly. \u25a0 \u2022\nThe defendants objected to the admission o'f-these receipts as such evidence, assigning as ground' for their objection, that they -had not been proved and registered according to law. The court overruled the objection, the receipts were received as evidence, and the defendants excepted.\nWhatever may have been the state of the law in respect to the admission of such contract without registration before The Code went into effect, it is very clear, that &Wcontracts for the conveyance of land must be proved and registered before they can be used as evidence in actions like the present one. They are now put on the same footing with deeds for real estate, as evid\u00e9nce, and cannot be admitted as such, until proved and registered.\nThe Code, \u00a7 1264, requires that \u201call contracts to sell or convey any lands, tenements or hereditaments, or any interest in or concerning them, and all leases required to be put in writing, upon due proof or acknowledgment thereof in the manner in this chapter provided for the conveyances of lands, shall be registered in the proper county within two years from the date of such contracts or leases.\u201d\nIf this were the only statutory provision in respect to such contracts, perhaps they might be put in evidence without registration. Indeed, it has been said that like contracts might be. Edwards v. Thompson, 71 N. C., 177; Mauney v. Crowell, 84 N. C., 314. \u2022 But The Code, \u00a7'1245, provides that \u201cno conveyance of land, nor contract to convey, nor lease of land for more than three years, shall he good and available in law, unless the same shall be acknowledged by the grantor or proved on oath by one or more witnesses in the manner hereinafter directed, and registered in the county where the land shall- lie within two years after the date of the said deed; and all deeds so executed and registered shall be valid, and pass estates in land without livery of seizin, attornment or other ceremony -whatever.\u201d\nIt will be observed, that this section changes and enlarges section 1 of chapter 37, Revised Code, so as to embrace contracts to convey lands, as well as conveyances for the same. The first section above set forth requires all such contracts to be proved and registered; the second provides that they shall not \u201c be good and available in law,\u201d until and unless they shall be so proved and registered, that is, like an unregistered deed, they shall not be received in evidence,'or actively serve the purpose for w-hich they are created; until proved and registered. Registration does not give them life, but efficiency; it fits and renders them competent to be evidence of themselves, and to be enforced by the courts, if otherwise sufficient to serve the purpose contemplated by them.\nThe receipts put in evidence by the plaintiff were the only written evidence of the contract, for the conveyance of land, he seeks to enforce. He insists that they sufficiently specify a contract in writing to entitle him to the relief he prays for. If so, the} make up the contract, however brief in terms, and however inartifieially expressed, that the statute requires to be proved and registered in order to render it \u201c good and available in law.\u201d The receipts must be proved and registered before the court can receive them as evidence and act upon them for the purposes of this action.\nThere is error, for which a new trial must be awarded. Let this opinion be certified to the superior court of Bertie county to the end, that that court may proceed in the action according to law. It is so ordered.\nError. Venire de novo.'",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Merrimon, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Mullen & Moore for plaintiff. .",
      "No counsel for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CHARLES WHITE v. THOMAS D. HOLLY and others.\nContract tu convey land must be registered-r-Evidence..\nContracts to convey land are not available in law and cannot be admitted in evidence in an action ior specific performance, until proved and registered. The Code, \u00a7 1245.\n(Edward's v. Thompson, 71 N. C., 177,; Mauney v. Crowell, 84 N. C., 314, cited.)\nCivil Action tried at January Special Term, 1884, of Bertie Superior Court, before Avery, J.\nThe defendants appealed from the judgment of the court below.\nMessrs. Mullen & Moore for plaintiff. .\nNo counsel for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0067-01",
  "first_page_order": 81,
  "last_page_order": 83
}