{
  "id": 8549665,
  "name": "EDWIN H. VOORHEES and wife, MILDRED B. VOORHEES v. VERNON C. GUTHRIE and wife, ELMA W. GUTHRIE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Voorhees v. Guthrie",
  "decision_date": "1970-08-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 703SC423",
  "first_page": "266",
  "last_page": "267",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 266"
    }
  ],
  "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": "169 S.E. 2d 210",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 N.C. App. 8",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8546657
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/6/0008-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 S.E. 2d 520",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 N.C. 402",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11303501
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/220/0402-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 230,
    "char_count": 2944,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.601,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.118644087747037e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3812650853389522
    },
    "sha256": "b7bd85eb4225e06c6904c46a80443beff7ce3f7257849998ab4c32d4f7a3925e",
    "simhash": "1:0eec3d43e43e7f7b",
    "word_count": 497
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:50:15.842675+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Morris and Graham, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "EDWIN H. VOORHEES and wife, MILDRED B. VOORHEES v. VERNON C. GUTHRIE and wife, ELMA W. GUTHRIE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brock, J.\nThe charge of the court to the jury contains inadvertent expressions of opinion which entitle defendants to a new trial. The manner of stating the contentions of the parties, if indicative of the court\u2019s opinion, is within the prohibition of G.S. 1-180. Bailey v. Hayman, 220 N.C. 402, 17 S.E. 2d 520. And exceptions to an expression of opinion in the statement of contentions may be taken by the aggrieved party for the first time upon appeal. State v. Powell, 6 N.C. App. 8, 169 S.E. 2d 210.\nWe do not quote the lengthy statement of contentions given by the trial judge because they would not be understandable without our also setting out a full review of the evidence. We conclude that neither would give any particular aid to the bar or the trial bench, and could not serve as a precedent in the future. Suffice to say, in our opinion the warmth and vigor of the trial judge\u2019s expressions, although couched in the form of contentions, were effective to impress the jury with the strength of plaintiffs\u2019 position and the weakness of defendants\u2019; and undoubtedly conveyed to the jury the impression that the trial judge was of the opinion plaintiffs should prevail in this lawsuit.\nIt may well be that plaintiffs are entitled to have the lease reformed in accordance with their contentions. Nevertheless, defendants are entitled to have the case presented to the jurors without their being subjected to the opinion of the trial judge upon what the facts of the case are or what the verdict should be.\nNew Trial.\nMorris and Graham, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brock, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Nelson W. Taylor for plaintiff.",
      "Boshamer & Graham, by Otho L. Graham, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EDWIN H. VOORHEES and wife, MILDRED B. VOORHEES v. VERNON C. GUTHRIE and wife, ELMA W. GUTHRIE\nNo. 703SC423\n(Filed 5 August 1970)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 50; Trial \u00a7 36\u2014 statement of contentions \u2014 expression of opinion \u2014 new trial\nWhere trial court inadvertently expressed its opinion in stating the contentions of the parties, the cause must be remanded for a new trial. G.S. 1-180.\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 31\u2014 exception to the charge \u2014 statement of contentions\nExceptions to an expression of opinion in the statement of contentions may be taken by the aggrieved party for the first time on appeal.\nAppeal by defendants from Parker (Joseph W.), J., 9 February 1970 Session, Carteret Superior Court.\nDefendants own three contiguous parcels of land situate on the Atlantic Beach Causeway between the towns of Morehead City and Atlantic Beach. In February 1964 defendants and plaintiffs executed a lease agreement which contained a description of two parcels of land. The lease agreement contained an option to purchase. In 1969 a dispute arose as to whether the third parcel should have been included in the lease agreement. This action was commenced to reform the lease to include the third parcel.\nFrom an adverse verdict and judgment reforming the lease to include the third parcel, defendants appealed.\nNelson W. Taylor for plaintiff.\nBoshamer & Graham, by Otho L. Graham, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0266-01",
  "first_page_order": 290,
  "last_page_order": 291
}