{
  "id": 8551382,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN EARLEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Earley",
  "decision_date": "1975-01-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 7429SC785",
  "first_page": "387",
  "last_page": "390",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 387"
    }
  ],
  "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": "295 S.W. 66",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 Tenn. 467",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Tenn.",
      "case_ids": [
        8533975
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/tenn/155/0467-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 Tenn. 9",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Tenn.",
      "case_ids": [
        8508894
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/tenn/224/0009-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 265,
    "char_count": 5052,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.592,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.520746714738075e-07,
      "percentile": 0.811461787926632
    },
    "sha256": "e35d8952f2de63b1bf30923edd8b09436826c06c3d22d7d388e20406528e23a1",
    "simhash": "1:17ad9322777fc37b",
    "word_count": 826
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:40.635509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Parker and Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN EARLEY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nAt the outset we are confronted with the question of Judge Martin\u2019s jurisdiction in a criminal case to adjudicate conflicting claims of title to allegedly stolen property which has been used in evidence and in which case the prosecution has been completed. We have no statute upon the subject, and we find no case law in this State which covers the subject.\nOur research leads us to believe that sound reasoning dictates that under the facts presented, Judge Martin did not have such jurisdiction in a criminal case.\nWhen the person from whose possession the allegedly stolen property was seized as evidence was not convicted of (or was not charged with) obtaining the property in violation of the law, and there is a controversy between him and the person from whom the property was allegedly stolen as to who has the right to it, a question is presented which cannot be determined in a criminal action but must be determined in an independent civil action. After the final disposition of the criminal case, a civil action among the various claimants to the property is the proper action in which title or right to possession can.be adjudicated. See Lawrence v. Mullins, 224 Tenn. 9, 449 S.W. 2d 224; Homolko v. State, 155 Tenn. 467, 295 S.W. 66; 68 Am. Jur. 2d, Searches & Seizures, \u00a7 119; 79 C.J.S., Searches & Seizures, \u00a7 114.\nWe do not reach a review of the merits of the disposition of the property by Judge Martin because the jurisdiction of the appellate courts on an appeal is derivative. If the trial court has no jurisdiction, the appellate courts cannot acquire jurisdiction by appeal. 1 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Appeal and Error, \u00a7 1.\nAppellee urges that appellant petitioned the trial court in this criminal case for possession of the forty-one rolls of cloth and thereby voluntarily submitted the matter to its jurisdiction. It is a well-established principle that jurisdiction over the subj ect matter cannot be conferred upon a court by consent, waiver, or estoppel. 2 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Courts, \u00a7 2.\nFor lack of jurisdiction in the trial court, its order entered in this criminal action on 24 May 1974 adjudicating title and right to possession of the forty-one rolls of cloth must be vacated and the proceeding dismissed.\nOrder vacated.\nProceeding dismissed.\nJudges Parker and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hamrick & Hamrick, by J. Nat Hamrick, for defendant-petitioner.",
      ". , Owens & Arledge, by Hollis M. Owens, Jr., for Piedmont-Interstate Warehouse. System."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN EARLEY\nNo. 7429SC785\n(Filed 2 January 1975)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 13 \u2014 receiving stolen property \u2014 no convictioncon-troversy over ownership of property \u2014 independent civil action required\nWhen a person from whose possession allegedly stolen property was seized as evidence was not convicted of (or was not charged with) obtaining the property in violation of the law, and there is a controversy between him and the person from whom the property was allegedly stolen as to who has the right to it, a question is presented which cannot be determined in a criminal action but must be determined in an independent civil action.\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 1 \u2014 no jurisdiction in trial court \u2014 jurisdiction of appellate court derivative\nIf the trial court has no jurisdiction, the appellate courts cannot acquire jurisdiction by appeal; therefore, the court on appeal does not ' reach a review of the merits of the trial court\u2019s disposition of property which was allegedly stolen and which defendant was charged with receiving, since the trial court did not have jurisdiction to determine the question of ownership of the property in a criminal case.\n3. Courts \u00a7 2 \u2014 jurisdiction over subject matter\nJurisdiction over subject matter cannot be conferred upon a court by consent, waiver or estoppel.\nAppeal by defendant-petitioner from Martin (Harry C.), Judge, 13 May 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Rutherford County. Argued in the Court of Appeals 22 October 1974.\nThe defendant was charged in a bill of indictment with the felony of receiving stolen goods of a value of more than $200.00, knowing that the goods had been previously stolen. Forty-one rolls of cloth were seized from defendant, and they were introduced in evidence at his trial. At the close of the State\u2019s evidence, defendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit was allowed.\nThereafter defendant petitioned the trial judge for the return to defendant of the forty-one rolls of cloth seized from him. Piedmont-Interstate Warehouse System, from whom the cloth was alleged to have been stolen, also petitioned the trial judge for a declaration that it was entitled to possession of the forty-one rolls of cloth.\nThe trial judge heard evidence, from both petitioners and made findings of fact from the evidence offered in this post-trial proceeding and from evidence offered in the criminal action which he had nonsuited. He thereafter decreed that Piedmont-Interstate Warehouse System was the owner and entitled to possession of the forty-one rolls of cloth.\nDefendant-petitioner appealed.\nHamrick & Hamrick, by J. Nat Hamrick, for defendant-petitioner.\n. , Owens & Arledge, by Hollis M. Owens, Jr., for Piedmont-Interstate Warehouse. System."
  },
  "file_name": "0387-01",
  "first_page_order": 415,
  "last_page_order": 418
}