# Batchelor v. Mitchell

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · October 14, 1953 · 238 N.C. 351

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856114

## Case

- **Full name:** WILLIAM J. BATCHELOR and ETHEL BATCHELOR v. M. B. MITCHELL and Wife, EMMA H. MITCHELL; R. I. MITCHELL AND SONS, INC., W. J. MANNING
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** October 14, 1953
- **Citations:** 238 N.C. 351; 78 S.E.2d 240; 1953 N.C. LEXIS 558
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by BarNhill
- **Judges:** Joiinson, Barnhill
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856114

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856114. Public record. Not legal advice.