Court Opinion

ID: 9856114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:38:36.844405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:26:04.896303
License: Public Domain

BarNhill, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part: 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 N.C. 798; Hoggard v. Beaden, 192 N.C. 494; Nash v. Hospital Co., 180 N.C. 59; Hunsucker v. Winborne, 223 N.C. 650, and cases cited. This the plaintiffs have failed to do. As to- these instruments, the complaint alleges nothing more than generalities which are mere conclusions. Therefore, to so much of the opinion as relates to those two instruments, I dissent.