{
  "id": 11274998,
  "name": "THE STATE v. STANHOPE HOOVER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hoover",
  "decision_date": "1890-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "795",
  "last_page": "796",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "107 N.C. 795"
    }
  ],
  "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": 184,
    "char_count": 2382,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.538,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6748751250509194e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6965290254373904
    },
    "sha256": "3bb981da5bec33147aa845697fc1ca2d48d071939648ea09a63a2cca11fce8d3",
    "simhash": "1:7d3183f84897145c",
    "word_count": 437
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:31:37.064200+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE v. STANHOPE HOOVER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.:\nThe contract, as testified to by the prosecutor, was as follows: \u201cJackson was to cultivate certain of the prosecutor\u2019s land, amounting to about eight or nine acres, for the year 1890, and pay him as rental the sum of $33, or one 400-pound bale of cotton, with the understanding that Jackson was to work for the prosecutor whenever he needed Jackson, and he (Jackson) could leave his own crop, at fifty cents a day.\u201d\nWe think the relation of master and servant did not exist, for the reason that Jackson was not in the employment of the prosecutor. The relation between them was- that of landlord and tenant. One of the terms or stipulations of the renting was that, in addition to the rent paid, Jackson, whenever at leisure, if called upon by the landlord, should work for him at fifty cents a day.\nIt has been held that where A employs B to labor for him for one year, at $20 per month, and gives him the use of a dwelling during the term, B\u2019s occupancy of the dwelling is that of a servant, and not as a tenant, and if he quits A\u2019s service, or is discharged, A may enter and forcibly eject him. Wood\u2019s Master and Servant, \u00a7153, and cases there cited. The reason is that the contract is that of hiring, and the use of the house is a part of the hire, or an incident of the contract. E converse, here the contract is that of renting, and the promise by the tenant to do labor when at leisure, if it is wanted by the landlord, is a mere incident of the contract of renting. The Court below erred, therefore, in instructing the jury that \u201cthe contract, as sworn to by the prosecutor, gave him the right to demand the services of Jackson every day if he chose to, and the man who took him away was guilty of violating the statute.\u201d\nPer Guriarn. Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Mr. E. T. Cansler (by brief) for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE v. STANHOPE HOOVER.\nIndictment \u2014 Enticing Servant \u2014 The Code, \u00a73119 and, 3120.\nWhere a tenant contracts that, in addition to payment of the stipulated rent, he .will work for the landlord whenever he can leave his own crop and is needed by the landlord, this does not constitute the relation of master and servant, and a person employing the tenant is not guilty of enticing a servant, under The Code, \u00a7 3120.\nCRIMINAL action, tried before Meares, J., at August Term, 1890, of Mecklenburg Criminal Court.\nAppeal by defendant.\nThe Attorney General, for the State.\nMr. E. T. Cansler (by brief) for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0795-01",
  "first_page_order": 831,
  "last_page_order": 832
}