{
  "id": 8654872,
  "name": "B. W. NASH, Trustee v. S. I. SUTTON, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Nash v. Sutton",
  "decision_date": "1896-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "298",
  "last_page": "299",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "119 N.C. 298"
    }
  ],
  "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": 174,
    "char_count": 2698,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.467,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7492960360752035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2984818806038499
    },
    "sha256": "89b6033a724d167ed742d4d8da2846c37daa98434f3fc739fd742a90c350f967",
    "simhash": "1:1e4da082ef1086d9",
    "word_count": 466
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:25:50.492694+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "B. W. NASH, Trustee v. S. I. SUTTON, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Fuboiies, J.:\nWe find the following agreement entered into by the parties and made a part of the case on appeal: \u201c The following issue, by permission of the court, the request of plaintiff and the express agreement between the parties, was the only issue submitted to the jury, with the distinct understanding on the part of the court and the parties that the response to said issue by the jury should settle the whole controversy and all the issues raised by the pleadings. It is further agreed that, if the jury should find the original conveyance (which had been burned) to the trustee was in trust for the Eaptist Church at Hickory Grove and Baptist denomination, they should answer the issue \u2018 Yes;\u2019 but if they should find that it was in trust for the Baptist Church at Hickory Grove alone, then they should answer the issue \u2018 No\u2019.\u201d And the issue submitted to the jury under this agreement is as follows: \u201cIs the plaintiff B. W. Nash, trustee, the owner of and entitled to recover possession of the property in controversy? Answer, 1 No\u2019.\u201d IJpon the coming in of the verdict the following judgment was rendered : \u201cUpon the finding of the jury, and upon admissions made on the trial, it is adjudged that the plaintiff recover nothing from the defendant; that the plaintiff is not the owner and is not entitled to recover the possession of the land described in the complaint; that defendant go without day, and recover costs, &c., and that no witness fees are to be taxed against plaintiff.\u201d\nAnd this judgment is excepted to by the plaintiff upon the ground that it is not justified by the verdict. This is the only exception in the case, and it is without merit and cannot be sustained. The verdict, when taken in connection with the agreement of the parties, fully sustains the judgment of the court, and the same must be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Fuboiies, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Allen dk Dortch, for plaintiff (appellant).",
      "Mr. George Rountree, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "B. W. NASH, Trustee v. S. I. SUTTON, et al.\nJudgment\u2014 Verdict \u2014 Agreement.\nWhere, on the trial of an action by a trustee to recover church property, the parties agreed that the answer as to the single issue submitted, as to whether the trustee was the owner and entitled to the possession, should settle the whole controversy and all the issues raised by the pleadings, and that the answer should be \u201c Tes \u201d if certain facts were true ; otherwise it should be \u201cNo,\u201d and the jury answered \u201cNo;\u201d Held, that the verdict, being in accordance with the stipulation, justified a judgment for the defendant.\nCivil ACTION, tried at May Term, 1896, of LeNOIR Superior Court, before Starbuclc, J., and a jury. The facts appear in the opinion of Associate Justice Eueohes.\nMessrs. Allen dk Dortch, for plaintiff (appellant).\nMr. George Rountree, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0298-01",
  "first_page_order": 326,
  "last_page_order": 327
}