Baynes v. . Harris
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by plaintiffs from Garter, J., at April Term, 1912, of GUILFORD. Civil action to correct and reform a deed. This issue was submitted without objection: “Did plaintiffs contract to purchase of defendant the land described in article 1 of the complaint? Answer: No.” The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice Brown.
1Opinion of the CourtBeowN, J.
This action was prosecuted by plaintiffs to correct and reform a deed executed by defendant to plaintiffs, the latter alleging that the instrument did not include all the land purchased by plaintiffs from defendant, and paid for, and that a part of the land was omitted either by mutual mistake of both parties to the deed or by the mistake of the plaintiffs and the fraud of defendant.
There are only two assignments of error: one to evidence and one to the charge of the court. We do' not think either can be sustained.
The court excluded a certain declaration of the defendant to witness Medearis,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Daniels v. New York & New England RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- Elks v. . Insurance CoSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. GraySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- In Re Will of SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Penn Dixie Lines, Inc. v. GrannickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Montgomery v. . LewisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- Stein v. . LevinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.