Brinson v. . Morris

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Brinson v. . Morris

134 S.E. 453, 192 N.C. 214, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 261

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 29, 1926

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 134 S.E. 453 (Brinson v. . Morris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brinson v. . Morris, 134 S.E. 453, 192 N.C. 214, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 261 (N.C. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

Plaintiff alleges tbat be is a resident of Guilford County, engaged in tbe business of distributing oil and gasoline throughout various sections of North Carolina under tbe style name of “Southern Oil Company”; tbat on 16 March, 1925, be.contracted to buy, and did buy, from tbe defendants a lot or parcel of land situate in tbe town of Pittsboro, and took a deed therefor in tbe name of Southern' Oil Company, as grantee, when tbe same should have been made to “E. L. Brinson, trading and doing business under tbe style name of Southern Oil Company,” in accordance with tbe intention of tbe parties; and tbat tbe defendants are now claiming an interest in tbe land, by reason of said defective deed. Wherefore, plaintiff brings this suit to have said deed corrected and to remove tbe defendant’s claim to tbe land as a cloud on plaintiff’s title. C. S., 1743. See Robinson v. Daughtry, 171 N. C., 200.

Tbe defendants in their answer admit tbat E. L. Brinson is a resident of Guilford County, but say tbat they have no “knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief” as to whether be is “conducting and *216 operating bis business under tbe style name of Southern Oil Company.” This, in effect, was a statutory denial of tbe fact, and sufficient to require proof of tbe allegation. C. S., 519; Person v. Leary, 127 N. C., 114. It was error, therefore, to render judgment for tbe plaintiff on tbe pleadings.

On tbe argument in this Court tbe > defendants demurred ore ienus, on tbe ground that tbe complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against tbe defendants. O. S., 511. But this must be overruled. It is alleged, inferentially at least, if not directly, that tbe defendants claim an interest in tbe land covered by tbe deed above mentioned. -In answer to this allegation, tbe defendants say: ■“It is denied that tbe defendants have no claim thereto.”

Xet tbe cause be remanded, to tbe end that further proceedings may be bad as tbe law directs and tbe rights of tbe parties require.

Error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Stacy, C. J.

Plaintiff alleges tbat be is a resident of Guilford County, engaged in tbe business of distributing oil and gasoline throughout various sections of North Carolina under tbe style name of “Southern Oil Company”; tbat on 16 March, 1925, be.contracted to buy, and did buy, from tbe defendants a lot or parcel of land situate in tbe town of Pittsboro, and took a deed therefor in tbe name of Southern' Oil Company, as grantee, when tbe same should have been made to “E. L. Brinson, trading and doing business under tbe style name of Southern Oil Company,” in accordance with tbe intention of tbe parties; and tbat tbe defendants are now claiming an interest in tbe land, by reason of said defective deed. Wherefore, plaintiff brings this suit to have said deed corrected and to remove tbe defendant’s claim to tbe land as a cloud on plaintiff’s title. C. S., 1743. See Robinson v. Daughtry, 171 N. C., 200.

Tbe defendants in their answer admit tbat E. L. Brinson is a resident of Guilford County, but say tbat they have no “knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief” as to whether be is “conducting and *216 operating bis business under tbe style name of Southern Oil Company.” This, in effect, was a statutory denial of tbe fact, and sufficient to require proof of tbe allegation. C. S., 519; Person v. Leary, 127 N. C., 114. It was error, therefore, to render judgment for tbe plaintiff on tbe pleadings.

On tbe argument in this Court tbe > defendants demurred ore ienus, on tbe ground that tbe complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against tbe defendants. O. S., 511. But this must be overruled. It is alleged, inferentially at least, if not directly, that tbe defendants claim an interest in tbe land covered by tbe deed above mentioned. -In answer to this allegation, tbe defendants say: ■“It is denied that tbe defendants have no claim thereto.”

Xet tbe cause be remanded, to tbe end that further proceedings may be bad as tbe law directs and tbe rights of tbe parties require.

Error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.E. 453, 192 N.C. 214, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brinson-v-morris-nc-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack