{
  "id": 8654208,
  "name": "JOHN FUTRELL et al v. LUCY C. DEANES et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Futrell v. Deanes",
  "decision_date": "1895-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "38",
  "last_page": "40",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "116 N.C. 38"
    }
  ],
  "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": "89 N. C., 93",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682796
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/89/0093-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N. C., 287",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682556
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/74/0287-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 190,
    "char_count": 2687,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.439,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.181815022867265e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5092179119323172
    },
    "sha256": "756bc5aa2f9455a438e879f03d2369e8f521872d39a524240959bb3da070a603",
    "simhash": "1:706fbe2dd15dd25c",
    "word_count": 472
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:04:38.706573+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN FUTRELL et al v. LUCY C. DEANES et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eairoloth, C. J.:\nIt appears from tbe record that tbe only question was which party should pay tbe costs. Such questions are not considered in this Court. State v. Railroad, 74 N. C., 287; Hasty v. Funderburk, 89 N. C., 93.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eairoloth, C. J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. L. L. Smith, for plaintiffs.",
      "Messrs. Winlorne c& Lawrence, for defendants (appellants)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN FUTRELL et al v. LUCY C. DEANES et al.\nPractice \u2014 Appeal from Judgment for Costs.\nWhere it appears from the record on appeal that the only question involved is one relating to the payment of costs, the appeal will be dismissed.\nCivin actioN, for the recovery of land, tried before Armfield, J., and a jury, at Spring Term, 1894, of ITebt-Rokd Superior Court. There was no objection to the rulings or charge of the Court, or to the issues submitted. The jury found that the plaintiffs were the owners of and entitled to the possession of the land and to $600 damages, and that the defendants were entitled to receive $1,191 for betterments, etc. ITis Honor rendered judgment for the possession of the land by the plaintiffs after payment to the defendants the amount adjudged. The judgment further declared :\n\u201c It is further adjudged and decreed that upon the verdict of the jury the defendants are entitled to the sum of ($591) five hundred and ninety-one dollars over and above the amount allowed to plaintiffs for damages, and that the said sum, less the costs of the action, is and is hereby adjudged to be a charge upon the said land in favor of the defendants with interest from the 16th day of April, 1894.\n\u201c It is further ordered and adjudged that if the said s\u00fam, with interest, less the costs of the action, is not paid on or before Monday of the next term of this Court the said land be sold on that day by L. J. Lawrence and L. L. Smith, who are hereby appointed commissioners for that purpose, and who are ordered, after due advertisement according to law, to sell the same at public outcry at the court-house door in \"Winton for cash, and that after report of said sale and confirmation they distribute the net proceeds as follows: First, to the payment of the costs of this action ; second, to the payment of the sum of five hundred and ninety-one dollars ($591) and interest (less the amount paid for costs) to the defendants as adjudged; third, the balance to be distributed to the plaintiffs according to their respective interests therein.\nIt is further adjudged that when the plaintiffs shall have paid to the defendants the amount adjudged to be due them, writ of possession may be issued to the plaintiffs for the immediate possession of the land. \u201d\nTbe defendants excepted to so much of tbe judgment as taxed tbem witb costs.\nMr. L. L. Smith, for plaintiffs.\nMessrs. Winlorne c& Lawrence, for defendants (appellants)."
  },
  "file_name": "0038-01",
  "first_page_order": 66,
  "last_page_order": 68
}