{
  "id": 8549532,
  "name": "PINE BURR GOLF, INC. v. GEORGE W. POOLE and Wife, BELLE POOLE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pine Burr Golf, Inc. v. Poole",
  "decision_date": "1970-05-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7011DC13",
  "first_page": "92",
  "last_page": "94",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 N.C. App. 92"
    }
  ],
  "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": "185 S.E. 463",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 N.C. 50",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622787
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/210/0050-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 S.E. 2d 285",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 N.C. 443",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8610417
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/233/0443-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 S.E. 2d 356",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 N.C. 488",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8613527
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/245/0488-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 S.E. 2d 139",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 N.C. 345",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567557
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/262/0345-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 234,
    "char_count": 3804,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.569,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20587821915486193
    },
    "sha256": "9dfda9eec8d544cfb2fd0e94d2f569d8c2c78e21d4db7e92c663d03978c1c7a2",
    "simhash": "1:84bfdc33a37cc3d1",
    "word_count": 631
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:14.673474+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Campbell and HedRICK, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "PINE BURR GOLF, INC. v. GEORGE W. POOLE and Wife, BELLE POOLE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Paeicek, J.\nPlaintiff excepted to the submission of the first issue to the jury. In paragraph three of its complaint, plaintiff alleged that it is the owner of \u201ca certain tract of land in Lillington Township, Harnett County, North Carolina, and more particularly described as follows: . . .\u201d There then follows a metes and bounds description by calls and distances from a designated beginning corner. Defendants answered paragraph three of the complaint as follows:\n\u201c3. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph Three it is specifically denied that the plaintiff is the owner of any land which has or now includes any property claimed by these defendants. The specific allegations relating to marks and Maps of the said paragraph are denied.\u201d\nNowhere in the answer do defendants deny that plaintiff owns the land described in the complaint. They only deny that plaintiff owns any land \u201cclaimed by these defendants.\u201d Defendants\u2019 pleadings do not disclose any \u201cclaim\u201d to any land. On the pleadings there is no controversy as to plaintiff\u2019s ownership of the land described in the complaint. The vague and evasive denial of \u201callegations relating to marks and Maps\u201d is insufficient to place in issue the ownership of the land which plaintiff had particularly described by metes and bounds.\nThe pleadings determine the issues, and the trial must be limited to the matters put in dispute by the pleadings. Carver v. Lykes, 262 N.C. 345, 137 S.E. 2d 139; Mesimore v. Palmer, 245 N.C. 488, 96 S.E. 2d 356; Bowen v. Darden, 233 N.C. 443, 64 S.E. 2d 285; Fairmont School v. Bevis, 210 N.C. 50, 185 S.E. 463. Here, no issue was raised as to ownership of the land and it was error to submit the first issue to the jury. If submitted, it should have been answered Yes by the court. Plaintiff is entitled to a\nNew trial.\nCampbell and HedRICK, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Paeicek, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edgar R. Bain for 'plaintiff appellant.",
      "Stewart & Hayes by Gerald W. Hayes, Jr., for defendant appel-lees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PINE BURR GOLF, INC. v. GEORGE W. POOLE and Wife, BELLE POOLE\nNo. 7011DC13\n(Filed 6 May 1970)\n1. Trespass \u00a7 5\u2014 wrongful cutting of timber \u2014 denial of ownership \u2014 pleadings\nin an action to recover double damages under G.S. 1-539.1 for the wrongful cutting of timber,' wherein .plaintiff alleged ownership of the tract on which the timber stood and particularly described it by metes and bounds, a mere allegation in defendants\u2019 answer denying that plaintiff owned any land \u201cclaimed by these defendants\u201d is held insufficient to place in issue the ownership-of the tract described by plaintiff; consequently, it was error to' submit the issue of ownership to the jury.\n2. Trial \u00a7 40; Pleadings \u00a7 37\u2014 determination of issues\nThe pleadings determine the issues, and the trial must be limited to the matters put in dispute by the pleadings.\n\u25a0- Appeal by. plaintiff from Morgan, \u25a0District Judge, 5 May 1969 Session of HarNett District Court.\nThis is a civil action in which plaintiff seeks double damages under G.S. 1-539.1 by r\u00e9ason of the cutting of timber on plaintiff\u2019s land. Plaintiff alleged ownership of a tract of land particularly described by metes and bounds in the complaint and that defendants \u25a0went upon plaintiff\u2019s land and cut timber without plaintiff\u2019s consent and permission. The plaintiff introduced evidence in support of its allegations. Defendants introduced no evidence. At the close of the evidence the court submitted issues to the jury which were answered as follows:\n\u201c1. Did the plaintiff own the tract of land described in the Complaint?\n\u201cANSWER: No.\n\u201c2. If so, did the defendant cut wood or timber off of the plaintiff\u2019s land?\n\u201cANSWER: .\n\u201c3. If so, what amount of damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant?\n\u201cANSWER: .\nFrom judgment that plaintiff recover nothing of defendant, plaintiff appealed.\nEdgar R. Bain for 'plaintiff appellant.\nStewart & Hayes by Gerald W. Hayes, Jr., for defendant appel-lees."
  },
  "file_name": "0092-01",
  "first_page_order": 116,
  "last_page_order": 118
}