{
  "id": 8549858,
  "name": "MARY ALMA HINES, Plaintiff v. THOMAS W. PIERCE, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff v. R. P. CRAVEN and wife, CLADIE CRAVEN and K. V. BRILES and wife, INA BRILES, Third Party Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hines v. Pierce",
  "decision_date": "1974-10-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 7419SC675",
  "first_page": "324",
  "last_page": "327",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "23 N.C. App. 324"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "104 N.C. 112",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650704
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/104/0112-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 S.E. 2d 729",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 N.C. 585",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615233
      ],
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/245/0585-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 S.E. 676",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1932,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N.C. 604",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627730
      ],
      "year": 1932,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0604-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 S.E. 2d 254",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 N.C. 586",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624711
      ],
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/252/0586-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 S.E. 142",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1889,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N.C. 112",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650704
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/104/0112-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 405,
    "char_count": 7342,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.6,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.345432909102184e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4406612122946164
    },
    "sha256": "a0d038331de62cd1f2ddf351c899e8ccb45337fbfba43506e3e596336b564215",
    "simhash": "1:bf60452305475be6",
    "word_count": 1241
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:39.683180+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Baley concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MARY ALMA HINES, Plaintiff v. THOMAS W. PIERCE, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff v. R. P. CRAVEN and wife, CLADIE CRAVEN and K. V. BRILES and wife, INA BRILES, Third Party Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nPlaintiff assigns as error the allowance of defendant\u2019s motion for directed verdict on plaintiff\u2019s claim for damages. This assignment has no merit.\nIn 7 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Trespass To Try Title, \u00a7 2, pp. 250-51, we find: \u201cIn an action in trespass to try title, defendant\u2019s denial of plaintiff\u2019s title and of the trespass places the burden upon plaintiff to prove title in himself and trespass by defendant. Plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own title, which he must establish by some recognized method. Further, plaintiff must not only show good paper title, he must also show that the area claimed is embraced within the descriptions in his instruments .. .. \u201d\nThe methods recognized to establish title to real estate in this jurisdiction are enumerated in the often cited case of Mobley v. Griffin, 104 N.C. 112, 10 S.E. 142 (1889). Plaintiff\u2019s proof of title failed to comply with any of the methods stated in Mobley. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to show that the disputed area from which the timber was cut and removed is embraced within the description in her deeds.\nPlaintiff further argues that the granting of defendant\u2019s motion for directed verdict on her claim for damages prejudiced her \u201cprocessioning proceeding\u201d; that it amounted to an expression of opinion by the trial judge. We reject this argument. The record reveals that the motions for directed verdict were made, and the second motion was allowed, in the absence of the jury. On the facts appearing, we hold that the court did not err in allowing the motion.\nBy five assignments of error, plaintiff contends \u201c[t]he adverse comments, remarks and language of the trial judge with reference to the plaintiff\u2019s evidence and plaintiff\u2019s counsel were of such antagonistic propensity toward the plaintiff that she was denied her right to a fair trial,\u201d in violation of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51(a). The major portion of plaintiff\u2019s brief is devoted to a discussion of these assignments. Suffice it to say, we have carefully considered the assignments and find them to be without merit. It is well settled that it is the duty of the trial judge to supervise and control the trial to prevent injustice to either party, and in discharging that duty the trial judge has large discretionary powers. 7 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Trial \u00a7 9, pp. 266-67. We hold that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in the conduct of the trial in this case.\nPlaintiff assigns as error the action of the trial judge in ordering plaintiff, as a part of the costs, to pay the surveyors\u2019 bill of $1,020. This assignment has no merit. Costs follow the final judgment, Whaley v. Taxi Co., 252 N.C. 586, 114 S.E. 2d 254 (1960), and where judgment is rendered in a defendant\u2019s favor on the controverted issue, plaintiff is properly taxed with the costs. Bundy v. Credit Co., 202 N.C. 604, 163 S.E. 676 (1932). Where a plaintiff fails to recover in an action involving title to real property in which a court survey is ordered, the trial judge has the authority and duty to order the expense of the survey included in the costs. G.S. 38-4 (d) (Supp. 1973) ; Ipock v. Miller, 245 N.C. 585, 96 S.E. 2d 729 (1957). There is no showing that the surveyors\u2019 bill in the case at bar was unreasonable.\nWe have considered the other assignments of error argued in plaintiff\u2019s brief but find them to be without merit.\nNo error.\nJudges Hedrick and Baley concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ottway Burton for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Miller, Beck, O\u2019Briant and Glass, by Adam W. Beck, for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARY ALMA HINES, Plaintiff v. THOMAS W. PIERCE, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff v. R. P. CRAVEN and wife, CLADIE CRAVEN and K. V. BRILES and wife, INA BRILES, Third Party Defendants\nNo. 7419SC675\n(Filed 16 October 1974)\n1. Trespass to Try Title \u00a7 4\u2014 insufficiency of evidence of title\nIn an action to recover damages for the removal of timber wherein title to the land in question was disputed, the trial court properly granted defendant\u2019s motion for directed verdict where plaintiff failed to prove title by any of the methods stated in Mobley v. Griffin, 104 N.C. 112, and failed to show that the area from which the timber was removed is embraced within the description in her deeds.\n2. Boundaries \u00a7 8\u2014 directed verdict in trespass to try title action \u2014 effect on processioning proceeding\nThe allowance of defendant\u2019s motion for directed verdict on plaintiff\u2019s claim for damages for removal of timber did not prejudice her processioning proceeding to establish the true boundary line where the motion was made and allowed in the absence of the jury.\n3. Trial \u00a7 10; Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 51\u2014 remarks of court \u2014 no expression of opinion\nTrial court\u2019s remarks with reference to plaintiff\u2019s evidence and counsel did not constitute an expression of opinion in violation of Rule 51(a)-\n4. Costs \u00a7 4\u2014 surveyors\u2019 fee as part of costs\nWhere plaintiff failed to recover in an action involving title to real property in which a court survey was ordered, the trial court properly ordered the expense of the survey included in the costs' taxed to the plaintiff, and a surveyor\u2019s fee of $1,020 was reasonable in this case. G.S. 38-4(d).\nAppeal by plaintiff from Crissmcm, Judge, 4 February 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Randolph County.\nIn her complaint, filed 17 May 1971, plaintiff alleged: She is the owner of a 47-acre tract of land, described in the complaint by courses and distances. On or about 15 March 1971, defendant entered upon plaintiff\u2019s land, cut and removed timber therefrom, and continues to cut and remove plaintiff\u2019s timber. She asked for temporary and permanent injunctive relief and for monetary damages in. amount of $10,000.\nIn his answer, defendant denied plaintiff\u2019s title to the 47 acres of land described in the complaint, and denied cutting or removing any timber from, or in any way trespassing upon, any lands belonging to plaintiff. In a further defense, defendant alleged ownership of a 20.25-acre tract of land which he described by courses and distances. In a third party complaint, he brought in as third party defendants the persons who had conveyed the 20.25-acre tract to him by warranty deed.\nOn 22 September 1971, surveyors were appointed by the court \u201c ... to survey all lands in dispute according to the contentions of the plaintiff and the defendant and report the same with maps to this court.\u201d On 18 September 1973, the court entered an order allowing plaintiff to amend her complaint to allege a processioning \u201cproceeding to establish a true boundary line between the plaintiff and the defendants.\u201d Plaintiff amended her complaint pursuant to the order and defendant filed answer to the amendment.\nAt the conclusion of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, defendant moved for a directed verdict as to plaintiff\u2019s claim for damages on the ground that plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case of title to the property within the area where she contends the timber was cut. The motion was overruled and defendant presented evidence. At the close of all the evidence, defendant renewed his motion for directed verdict and it was allowed.\nAs to the boundary dispute, the court submitted issues which were answered in favor of defendant. From judgment predicated on the verdict and taxing plaintiff with the costs, including a $1,020 surveyors\u2019 bill, plaintiff appealed.\nOttway Burton for plaintiff appellant.\nMiller, Beck, O\u2019Briant and Glass, by Adam W. Beck, for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0324-01",
  "first_page_order": 352,
  "last_page_order": 355
}