Batchelor v. Mitchell
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBarNhill, J.
I concur in the conclusion that the complaint states a cause of action sufficient to repel the demurrer. I am of the opinion, however, that the allegations contained in the complaint in respect to the circumstances under which the deeds from W. J. Batchelor to Mary S. Manning and from Ethel Batchelor to Mary S. Manning were executed are insufficient to constitute allegations of duress, undue influence, or fraud.
The facts which constitute the duress, undue influence, or fraud relied on must be alleged. McIntosh, P. & P., 359; Development Co. v. Bearden, 227 N.C. 124; Weaver v. Hampton, 201…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Patuxent Development Co. v. BeardenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
- Nash v. Elizabeth City Hospital Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
- Weaver v. . HamptonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- Hoggard v. . BrownSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- Hunsucker v. . WinborneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943