{
  "id": 11277947,
  "name": "Little and others v. May",
  "name_abbreviation": "Little v. May",
  "decision_date": "1825-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "599",
  "last_page": "601",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Hawks 599"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 N.C. 599"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 286,
    "char_count": 5091,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.43,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2514423364493507e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6102656950270073
    },
    "sha256": "5dafd0eb12a0105335a337b5ff47861718fba9cb3c41cb8cdcfccf681975cf44",
    "simhash": "1:20449eb0615b4e7b",
    "word_count": 930
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:47:55.468459+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Little and others v. May."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Taylor, Chief Justice.\nThe design of the notice required by the act of 1813, is to enable the owners of land over which the new road may run, to come forward and urge to the Court such objections, either of a public or private nature, as may show it to be inconvenient, useless or uniust; but it certainly was not intended that the '* - establishment of a useful public road should be impeded by the omission of twenty days\u2019 previous notice, if before the order for laying off the road is made, ample notice is given to the owner to enable him to provide evidence and make a defence. It appears, in this case, that Daniel May had notice at October session of the County Court in 1821, at which time lie opposed the petition; and if at that time the order had been made for laying off the road, the want of twenty days\u2019 previous notice would have been fatal to its validity. But from that time he continued to defend the petition; it was continued once at his request, he carried it up by appeal to the Superior Court; and if after a notice of three years he could not prepare for his defence, the notice of twenty days prior to filing the petition would have availed him but little. The decision of both Courts was made with full notice to the defendant; and it is impossible to sustain the objection now taken without manifest injustice. Notice to Daniel May is equivalent to notice to William, who was a minor and lived with him.\nPer Cvn-iam, Judgment appirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Taylor, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Little and others v. May.\n} From Anson.\nThe design of notice of an intended petition to lay off a road is, that the owners of the land may come forward and object; but the act did not intend that the establishment of a necessary road should be impeded for the want of twenty days\u2019 notice, if before an order is made ior laying off the road, ample notice is given to the owner. Where, therefore, a petition for a new road is filed and is continued in Court three years, during which time the owner of the land opposes (he petition, continues the cause, appeals to the Superior Court, 8cc. he cannot after these steps taken by him, object to the want of twenty days\u2019 notice, for his conduct shows that he has had ample notice.\nThis was an appeal from the decision of Judge Nor-wood, dismissing an appeal taken by the defendant from the decision of Anson County Court in the matter of a road.\nLittle and others, at October term, 1821, filed a petition praying to have a new road laid off, and gave notice in writing of their intention so to do, to all who owned the land over which it would pass; except to themselves, the petitioners, and to one William May, who, it was alleged, owned some of the land. The cause was continued on the docket until January term, 1822, and from that term, to April term, 1822, the pendency of the petition was duly advertised at the court-house door; at April term, Daniel May, who opposed the petition, had the cause continued until July term, when the County Court directed a jury to lay off theroad, &c. and return their proceedings to the next Court: from this order Daniel May appealed to the Superior Court.\nIn the Superior Court, motions were submitted on both sides: the defendant moved to dismiss the petition on the .ground that notice in writing had not been given to William May, who was the son of Daniel; and to prove W. .4fay\u2019s ownership, he read a conveyance from one of tine petitioners to himself for land over which the contemplated road would pass, dated August 13,1821; this deed was neither proved or recorded; and a deed from himself to W. May for the same land, dated September 15, 1821, acknowledged by the defendant at October term, 1822, and registered in December following. William May was proved to have been of the age of 18 years at the time the deed bore date, was living with his father, and not about to settle himself; and there was contradictory evidence as to the time when the deed was really executed.\nTo this it was answered, 1st, that the objection of want of notice should have been made at an earlier stage of the proceedings, in the County Court, on the hearing of the petition: 2d, that W. May was not owner of the land when the petition was filed, nor was he now, because the deed to the defendant was not proved and registered, and the deed from the defendant to W. May was not proved and registered until after the judgment in thejCounty Court: and, 3d, that filing the petition at January term, 1822, and continuing it over to April 1822, with public advertisement in the mean time, is notice to all persons under the act of 1813, ch. 862. JV*. It.\nThe plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, 1st, because the appeal bond was made payable to Little only, and not to all the petitioners, and was signed by but one security who had not affixed his seal to his signature: 2d, on the ground that it was an appeal from an interlocutory judgment, the final judgment in such cases being to confirm the report of the jury, Ac.\nThe Judge dismissed the appeal, and directed a proce-dendo to the County Court, whereupon the detendant appealed to this Court."
  },
  "file_name": "0599-01",
  "first_page_order": 601,
  "last_page_order": 603
}