{ "id": 11274236, "name": "W. L. SHERRILL et al. v. MARY D. CONNER", "name_abbreviation": "Sherrill v. Conner", "decision_date": "1890-09", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "543", "last_page": "545", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "107 N.C. 543" } ], "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": [ { "cite": "106 N. C., 752", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652143 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/106/0752-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 Wis., 209", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8707476 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis/31/0209-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 N. Y., 53", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 521441 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/59/0053-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 304, "char_count": 4119, "ocr_confidence": 0.526, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.865114278970581e-07, "percentile": 0.8417973403082574 }, "sha256": "cc75b848b38925a534fd27ceec9e7d07c968966d448676cb17bb129d75ea6154", "simhash": "1:0dc38fda4c2f7f0a", "word_count": 721 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:31:37.064200+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "W. L. SHERRILL et al. v. MARY D. CONNER." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Avery, J.\nafter stating the facts: The appeal of the plaintiffs raises but a single question for our consideration.\nIt is provided by statute (The Code, \u00a7629) that \u201cin all cases of waste, when judgment shall be against the defendant, the Court may give judgment for thrice the amount of the damages assessed by the jury, and also that the plaintiff recover the place wasted if the said damages shall not be paid on or before a day to be named in the judgment.\u201d This section is substantially the same as the law in force before the enactment of The Code (Revised Code, ch. 116, \u00a7 3; Revised Statute, ch. 119, \u00a7 3), except two important change3. The word \u201cmay\u201d has been substituted for \u201cshall\u201d in the old statute of Gloucester, and, by a qualification added to it, the judgment for the place wasted must be conditional, and can take effect only upon the failure of the defendant to pay the actual damages assessed before a day certain. So that it is left within the sound discretion of the Judge who tries the action to determine whether he will give treble or single damages, as well as to fix a day after which a writ of possession may issue for the place wasted, if the damage allowed shall not have been meantime actually paid. The old statute was, manifestly, amended when The Code was enacted, for the purpose of vesting a discretionary power in the Court in reference to the amount of the judgment, and to fixing the time for forfeiture of the place wasted, on failure to pay the amount recovered.\nCounsel contended, on the argument, that this is a case in which the Court should construe the word \u201cmay\u201d in the statute as intended by the Legislature to mean \u201cshall.\u201d It would, very obviously, be not only judicial legislation, but a repeal of a law passed by the General Assembly in 1883, were we, by the construction insisted on, to strike out the amendment, and restore the provision of the old statute of Glouces\u2018er as to the amount of damage for which judgment must be given. Even in England the Courts have never gone so far in the liberal construction of statutes. Parke, B., in Jones v. Harrison, 6 Ex. Rep., 332. Where the Legislature expresses its intent in unequivocal terms, the Courts must give effect to it by interpretation, without regard to other rules of construction. Farmers Bank v. Hole, 59 N. Y., 53; Chapin v. Crusen, 31 Wis., 209; State v. Eaves, 106 N. C., 752. It was not error in the Judge below to exercise his discretion as to giving judgment for single or treble damages.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Avery, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Mr. John Devereux, Jr., for plaintiffs.", "Mr. W. A. Hoke, for defendant" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "W. L. SHERRILL et al. v. MARY D. CONNER.\nWaste\u25a0 \u2014 \u25a0Treble Damages \u2014 Dower\u2014Reversioners\u2014Discretion of the Court \u2014 The Code.\n1. In an action brought by the reversioners for waste against the tenant in dower, the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs: Held, that they were entitled to treble damages under The Code, \u00a7629, in the discretion of the Court.\n2. The Code, \u00a7 629, says the Court may give judgment for treble damages and the place wasted, and this Court will not make such discretionary power obligatory.\nThis was a civil ACTION, tried at the September Term, 1890, of the Superior Court of LINCOLN County, before Brown, J.\nThe action was brought by the plaintiffs, reversioners, against the defendant, tenant in dower.\nThe issues and responses of the jury were as follows:\n\u201c1. Has the defendant negligently and wrongfully wasted and damaged the lands and property described in complaint? Answer \u2014 Yes.\n\u201c2. If so, what are the plaintiffs entitled to recover? Answer \u2014 $1,300, divided as follows: T. F. Connor, $144A; Etta Sherrill, $144A; Charles E. Ramsey, $T44A; Annie Y. Ivey, $57714; Lucy Avery, $21641; James M. Ivey, $72A.\u201d\nMotion by plaintiffs for judgment for treble damages, made after verdict of jury is rendered and after defendant\u2019s motion for new trial was refused.\nThe motion of the plaintiffs is denied, the Court being of opinion that it is a matter of .discretion.\nThe plaintiffs except, and appeal to the Supreme Court.\nJudgment is rendered in favor of plaintiffs for damages assessed by jury, and costs.\nMr. John Devereux, Jr., for plaintiffs.\nMr. W. A. Hoke, for defendant" }, "file_name": "0543-01", "first_page_order": 579, "last_page_order": 581 }