{
  "id": 8552196,
  "name": "PAUL REEVES v. DONALD MUSGROVE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Reeves v. Musgrove",
  "decision_date": "1974-11-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7423DC771",
  "first_page": "535",
  "last_page": "537",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "23 N.C. App. 535"
    }
  ],
  "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": "10 S.E. 142",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "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"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 S.E. 2d 567",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 N.C. App. 638",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552403
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/7/0638-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 S.E. 2d 604",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 N.C. 212",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566471
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/262/0212-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 267,
    "char_count": 4594,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.588,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3793777166159108
    },
    "sha256": "8ca3f8487601d6b8e5fcd699ae5bf19a8ccdc1f464b7c01e528f31e512a45394",
    "simhash": "1:3be1007fbe372fe6",
    "word_count": 782
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:39.683180+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "PAUL REEVES v. DONALD MUSGROVE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BALEY, Judge.\nThe record in this case is in a confusing state and difficult to understand. The answer of defendant originally admitted the plaintiff\u2019s allegation of ownership of land as set out in the complaint. The title of plaintiff was apparently not in dispute when the parties consented to the order of reference. When the matter was heard before the referee the action was in effect a processioning proceeding to determine a boundary line. Pruden v. Keemer, 262 N.C. 212, 136 S.E. 2d 604; Prince v. Prince, 7 N.C. App. 638, 173 S.E. 2d 567; 2 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Boundaries, \u00a7 8, p. 12. The report of the referee, however, concluded that the title of plaintiff was superior to that of defendant and awarded plaintiff the disputed property.\nBefore the trial court reviewed the report of the referee on appeal, it permitted the defendant over objection by the plaintiff to amend his answer and deny the plaintiff\u2019s title. This converted the action from a processioning proceeding into an action to try title. Since the issue of title did not arise until this, stage, the report of the referee \u2014 although purporting to adjudge a superior title in plaintiff \u2014 cannot stand. The hearing before the referee did not concern an action to try title. The transcript of the evidence before him does not disclose any deed to plaintiff or other documentary indicia of title in plaintiff and will not support a finding that plaintiff had title.\nThis cause must be returned for disposition after a consideration of all the issues raised by the pleadings as amended, which include the issue of title, and title must be shown in accordance with an accepted method of proof. Mobley v. Griffin, 104 N.C. 112, 10 S.E. 142.\nNew trial.\nJudges Morris and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BALEY, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edmund I. Adams, for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Arnold L. Young and Lewis Alexander for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PAUL REEVES v. DONALD MUSGROVE\nNo. 7423DC771\n(Filed 6 November 1974)\nBoundaries \u00a7 8; Trespass to Try Title \u00a7 1\u2014 processioning proceeding \u2014 appeal of reference \u2014 denial of title \u2014 action to try title \u2014 erroneous adoption of referee\u2019s report\nWhen the trial court, before reviewing the report of the referee in a processioning proceeding, permitted defendant to amend his answer to deny plaintiff\u2019s title, the proceeding was converted into an action to try title; and since the issue of title did not arise until this stage, the report of the referee purporting to adjudge superior title in plaintiff could not be adopted by the trial court, and the action must be remanded for a determination of the issue of title.\nAppeal by defendant from Osborne, Judge, 14 May 1974 Session of District Court held in Alleghany County.\nHeard in Court of Appeals 17 October 1974.\nThis action was instituted by plaintiff alleging ownership of a tract of land described in his complaint and seeking the ejectment of defendant from a portion of that land. The original answer of the defendant admitted the title of plaintiff to the tract of land described in the complaint but asserted his own title to a tract of 1 and described in his answer. When the case was reached for trial, the court, with the consent of both parties, ordered a reference.\nUpon proper notice, a hearing was held before the referee on 17 January 1974, at which time both parties submitted evidence. On 5 February 1974 the referee made his report in which he concluded that plaintiff had a superior title to the land in dispute, awarded the land to the plaintiff, and directed the defendant immediately to remove his fences and vacate the property.\nOn 12 February 1974, defendant entered notice of appeal from the report of the referee and demanded a jury trial upon all issues; There were no specific exceptions to any findings of fact or conclusions of law in the referee\u2019s report, but the District Judge on 22 February 1974 directed that the case be placed on the next civil jury docket.\nUpon the call of the case for trial at the 14 May 1974 session of the district court, plaintiff moved in open court for adoption of the report of the referee. Defendant moved to amend his answer so as to deny the title of plaintiff. Over objection of plaintiff, the defendant was allowed to amend his answer and deny the plaintiff\u2019s title. After his answer was amended the defendant then moved that the referee\u2019s report be \u201cthrown out or disapproved in its entirety.\u201d\nAfter reviewing the report of the referee, the court entered judgment substantially adopting the report and adjudging that plaintiff had superior title to the property in dispute.\nFrom this judgment defendant has appealed.\nEdmund I. Adams, for plaintiff appellee.\nArnold L. Young and Lewis Alexander for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0535-01",
  "first_page_order": 563,
  "last_page_order": 565
}