{
  "id": 8554196,
  "name": "EDGAR J. GURGANUS, JOHN H. GURGANUS and CHARLES H. MANNING v. A. TOBY HEDGEPETH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gurganus v. Hedgepeth",
  "decision_date": "1980-05-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 792SC1026",
  "first_page": "831",
  "last_page": "833",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "46 N.C. App. 831"
    }
  ],
  "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": "175 S.E. 2d 772",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 237",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549320
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/9/0237-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 633",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 503",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573745,
        8573711
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0503-02",
        "/nc/272/0503-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 S.E. 2d 320",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.C. 201",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566561
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/270/0201-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 S.E. 2d 525",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 S.E. 2d 524",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 N.C. App. 742",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554288
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/23/0742-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 253,
    "char_count": 3306,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.808,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.429930153116073e-07,
      "percentile": 0.651086607752035
    },
    "sha256": "7abaa752251caf94637aaa2862330b8dc42a8de3a73c8d6357167f0ea95ddb32",
    "simhash": "1:4b996462f0813cd6",
    "word_count": 566
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:37.131990+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Erwin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "EDGAR J. GURGANUS, JOHN H. GURGANUS and CHARLES H. MANNING v. A. TOBY HEDGEPETH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nG.S. 1-76(1) provides that where an action is for \u201c[recovery of real property, or of an estate or interest therein, or for the determination in any form of such right or interest,\u201d the action must be tried in the county in which the property is situated. In Sample v. Towe Motor Company, Inc., 23 N.C. App. 742, 209 S.E. 2d 524 (1974), we found that this statute applied to facts much the same as those now before us. There, plaintiff lessors, alleging that defendant had breached the lease, notified defendant to vacate the premises and asked the court to order the lease terminated. We said: \u201cThe lease . . . vested defendant with \u2018an estate or interest\u2019 in real property. The action seeks to terminate that interest and will require the Court to determine the respective rights of the parties with respect to the leasehold interest.\u201d Id. at 743, 209 S.E. 2d 525. We do not find the present case distinguishable merely because the plaintiffs in this action are the lessees rather than the lessors. The thrust of plaintiffs\u2019 action is to have the court declare that they still hold a leasehold interest in the property, and such an action falls within G.S. 1-76.\nThe cases relied upon by plaintiffs are distinguishable upon their facts. Rose\u2019s Stores, Inc. v. Tarrytown Center, Inc., 270 N.C. 201, 154 S.E. 2d 320 (1967), involved the construction of a building near plaintiff\u2019s store, in alleged violation of plaintiff\u2019s lease, and the court noted that the plaintiff did not seek a judgment that would affect an interest in land. Thompson v. Horrell, 272 N.C. 503, 158 S.E. 2d 633 (1968), was an action for damages for breach of a contract to construct a house, as was Wise v. Isenhour, 9 N.C. App. 237, 175 S.E. 2d 772 (1970). Neither of these involved a determination relating to any estate or interest in land.\nDefendant is entitled to a change of venue as a matter of right. The order of the trial court is\nReversed.\nJudges Hedrick and Erwin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gurganus & Bowen, by Edgar J. Gurganus, for plaintiff ap-pellees.",
      "Kellogg, White & Evans, by Thomas N. Barefoot, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EDGAR J. GURGANUS, JOHN H. GURGANUS and CHARLES H. MANNING v. A. TOBY HEDGEPETH\nNo. 792SC1026\n(Filed 20 May 1980)\nVenue \u00a7 5.1\u2014 action involving real property \u2014 county where land located as proper venue\nIn an action by plaintiff lessees to have the court declare that they held a leasehold interest in a space in a trailer park, defendant was entitled to a change of venue as a matter of right to the county where the property in question was located. G.S. 1-76.\nAppeal by defendant from Strickland, Judge. Order entered 31 July 1979 in Superior Court, MARTIN County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 April 1980.\nPlaintiffs allege that in 1978 they leased from defendant a space in a trailer park in Dare County, and that although they have complied with the terms of the lease, defendant has advised them to vacate the premises, thereby breaching the contract. They seek specific performance, the removal of the \u201ccloud upon their leasehold title,\u201d or, in the event they receive neither of these, damages.\nDefendant moved to remove this action from Martin County to Dare County. The court found that this is a transitory rather than a local action and denied defendant\u2019s motion.\nDefendant appeals.\nGurganus & Bowen, by Edgar J. Gurganus, for plaintiff ap-pellees.\nKellogg, White & Evans, by Thomas N. Barefoot, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0831-01",
  "first_page_order": 859,
  "last_page_order": 861
}
