{
  "id": 8654141,
  "name": "STATE on the relation of S. C. WILSON v. CLARA M. FEATHERSTONE, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Wilson v. Featherstone",
  "decision_date": "1896-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "840",
  "last_page": "841",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "118 N.C. 840"
    }
  ],
  "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": "108 N. C., 273",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 151,
    "char_count": 1967,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.466,
    "sha256": "4391403855d75f6c4cc4706cc93ecb9a71d9ed9e0efd6e333cd84ab2952d3144",
    "simhash": "1:821b780b1e1db08f",
    "word_count": 337
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:06.557243+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE on the relation of S. C. WILSON v. CLARA M. FEATHERSTONE, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Montgomery, J.:\nIn this case the clerk ordered a re-allotment of the dower, assigning as his reason therefor that the petitioner did not receive notice of the day and time when the jury would meet to allot it, and that Section 2114 of The Gode required that such notice should have been given her.\nIt is-not necessary for us to decide this question in this case, for it appears from the order of the judge, made in Chambers, on the appeal of the defendants, that he heard the case on argument by brief of counsel on both sides on the - whole papers in the case, including conflicting affidavits concerning values, and in his discretion adjudged that the clerk\u2019s order be affirmed. The judge had the discretion to set aside the allotment and to order another. In Wellfare v. Wellfare, 108 N. C., 273, this Court -decided that \u201c the court below, in the exercise of a sound discretion, must be the judge of how often, for just cause, it will direct a re-allotment.\u201d There is no error and the judgement of the judge is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Montgomery, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. J. H. Merrimon and O. M. Btedman, for plaintiffs.",
      "Mr. W. W. Jones, for defendants (appellants)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE on the relation of S. C. WILSON v. CLARA M. FEATHERSTONE, et al.\nBower, lie allotment of \u2014 Discretion of Trial Judge.\nThe trial judge, in the exercise of a sound discretion, is the judge of how oft.en, for just cause, the court will order a re-allotment of dower, and such discretion is not reviewable where it appears that the court below, after full argument from both sides, on all the papers, including confiiccing affidavits as to value, confirmed the order of the clerk directing a re-allotment.\nPetition for dower, heard on appeal from an order of the Clerk of Buncombe Superior Court, directing are-allotment, before Timberlake, J., at Chambers, in Asheville. His Honor, after bearing full argument and considering conflicting affidavits as to value, &c., affirmed the order of the clerk, and defendants appealed.\nMessrs. J. H. Merrimon and O. M. Btedman, for plaintiffs.\nMr. W. W. Jones, for defendants (appellants)."
  },
  "file_name": "0840-01",
  "first_page_order": 876,
  "last_page_order": 877
}