{
  "id": 8652378,
  "name": "IDA L. LUPTON v. SILAS LUPTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lupton v. Lupton",
  "decision_date": "1895-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "30",
  "last_page": "31",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "117 N.C. 30"
    }
  ],
  "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": "67 N. C., 40",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2092614
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/67/0040-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 N. C., 214",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649774
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/96/0214-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 163,
    "char_count": 2026,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.435,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4975956836136062e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6649739038839716
    },
    "sha256": "91271da4c2e7c289e3eacf45b50cb249d1bd1a0898e60130d48f6fec4c0c36b9",
    "simhash": "1:4ebb2909d65ed502",
    "word_count": 342
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:25:58.395701+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "IDA L. LUPTON v. SILAS LUPTON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Faircloth, C. J.:\nThe plaintiff, Ida L. Lupton, filed a petition for sale and division of the proceeds of a certain boat, \u201cDolly,\u201d alleging that she and defendant were tenants in common of the boat, which was denied by defendant. In the assignment of plaintiff\u2019s year\u2019s allowance from her former husband\u2019s estate, one of the items was \u201cone-half of boat,\u201d and defendant insisted that that part of the assignment was void for want of better description and that no title passed. It was proved that the boat \u201cDolly\u201d was the only boat in which her husband had any interest at his death. His Honor admitted the assignment in evidence and h.eard oral testimony as to the identity of the boat, and defendant excepted and appealed.\nThe evidence was competent. Spivey v. Grant, 96 N. C., 214; Phillips v. Hooker, Phil. Eq., 194. These cases are distinguishable from Blakely v. Patrick, 67 N. C., 40, where there were more than ten buggies, and the ten could not be identified.\nNo error and the judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Faircloth, C. J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Simmons, Gibbs <& Pearsall, for plaintiff.",
      "Mr. JF. J. Rouse, for defendant (appellant)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IDA L. LUPTON v. SILAS LUPTON.\nDescription\u2014 Parol Evidence to Assist Description\u2014 Identification.\nWhere the assignment to a widow of her year\u2019s support from her husband\u2019s estate included \u201cone-half of boat,\u201d and it was proved in an action relating to the title thereto that her husband was interested in but one boat; Held, that such assignment was not void, and parol evidence was admissible to identify the boat as the one in which the husband had a half interest.\nSpboial PROCEEDING, begun before the Clerk of the Superior Court of Carteret county, for the sale for partition of a boat, described in the petition. One issue, as to title, was raised, and being transferred to Term for trial, was heard before Boyhin, J., and a jury, at Fall Term, 1894, of Carteret Superior Court. These facts sufficiently appear in the decision of Chief Justice Faircloth. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendant appealed.\nMessrs. Simmons, Gibbs <& Pearsall, for plaintiff.\nMr. JF. J. Rouse, for defendant (appellant)."
  },
  "file_name": "0030-01",
  "first_page_order": 58,
  "last_page_order": 59
}