{
  "id": 8651152,
  "name": "HALE BROTHERS v. B. F. WHITEHEAD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hale Bros v. Whitehead",
  "decision_date": "1894-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "28",
  "last_page": "29",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "115 N.C. 28"
    }
  ],
  "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": "88 N. C., 691",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12117553
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/88/0691-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 181,
    "char_count": 2653,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.586,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20759357012706145
    },
    "sha256": "fe2d88ef12fd8f148bea4711517b09e935f9fb07d26ffc23f76fc3cccf7e639a",
    "simhash": "1:962c8b87c7c55c75",
    "word_count": 450
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:29:52.252220+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HALE BROTHERS v. B. F. WHITEHEAD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clakk, J.:\nThe appraisers to allot the homestead are required by The Code, \u00a7 502, to be discreet persons, \u201c qualified to act as jurors.\u201d The plain import of this language is that they shall have the qualifications of regular jurors. These are not required to be freeholders. Tales jurors are required by The Code, \u00a7 405, to be taken from bystanders qualified to serve as jurors, and by The Code, \u00a7 1733, such tales jurors are further required to be freeholders, and must not have served on the jury within that Court within two years. This shows that these extraordinary jurors must not only be \u201c qualified to serve as jurors,\u201d but must have the additional qualifications of being freeholders and of non-service in same capacity for two years. State v. Whitley, 88 N. C., 691. The -reason of this was to prevent professional jurors who might be \u201c qualified to act as jurors\u201d from monopolizing the jury box. Neither the reason nor the letter of the law applies to appraisers, who need not be summoned hastily, nor usually from a crowd of bystanders. There is no requirement that they shall have the qualification of being freeholders, as is the case with extraordinary or tales jurors, but simply that they shall be \u201c qualified to act as jurors,\u201d i. e., as ordinary or regular jurors.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clakk, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Ihomas N. Hill, for plaintiffs.",
      "Messrs. Day & Harrison, for. defendant (appellant)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HALE BROTHERS v. B. F. WHITEHEAD.\nAppraisers of Homestead \u2014 Qualification as Jurors.\nThere is no requirement that appraisers to allot the homestead shall have the qualification of being freeholders, as is the case with extraordinary or tales jurors, but simply that they shall be \u201c qualified to act as jurors,\u201d i. e., as ordinary or regular jurors. (Section 502 of The Code.)\nThis was an appeal from the return of appraisers who laid off the homestead of the defendant, heard before Graves, J., and a jury, at March Term, 1894, of Halifax Superior Court.\nThe following issues were submitted to the jury :\n\u201c 1. Did appraisers allot to defendant, as his homestead, land of less value than one thousand dollars?\n\u201c 2. Was the appraiser L. M. Alston a freeholder?\n\u201c 3. Was the appraiser L. M. Alston excepted to before he was sworn ? \u201d\nThe jury answered the first issue \u201c No,\u201d the second \u201c No,\u201d and the third \u201c Yes.\u201d\nThereupon, the defendant asked judgment upon the verdict that the return of the appraisers be set aside because no proper homestead had been allotted him according to law, in this, that the appraiser L. M. Alston was not a freeholder and a proper person to act as such appraiser. The motion was refused, and, after judgment for plaintiff, defendant appealed.\nMr. Ihomas N. Hill, for plaintiffs.\nMessrs. Day & Harrison, for. defendant (appellant)."
  },
  "file_name": "0028-01",
  "first_page_order": 48,
  "last_page_order": 49
}