{
  "id": 8655293,
  "name": "WILEY PASLEY v. ALLEN RICHARDSON AND WIFE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pasley v. Richardson",
  "decision_date": "1896-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "449",
  "last_page": "450",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "119 N.C. 449"
    }
  ],
  "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": "97 N. C., 339",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650321
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/97/0339-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 140,
    "char_count": 1774,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.444,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.389417958949737e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5154024423817759
    },
    "sha256": "b8cc586c577bdf6421847a864b29c5231e76ffbee3fde68fdecddabf9815ca7b",
    "simhash": "1:2469548b597bb2b4",
    "word_count": 299
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:25:50.492694+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WILEY PASLEY v. ALLEN RICHARDSON AND WIFE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EAiboloth, C. J. :\nThis was an action of ejectment. Each party introduced evidence of title. Defendants proposed to introduce the tax lists of Alleghany county for the year 1874 and all following years to show that Samuel Pasley, under whom defendants claimed title, listed the land in dispute, and that plaintiff did not list said land for taxes during any of said years. This was offered to rebut plaintiff\u2019s title, and to show the character of defendants\u2019 and Samuel Pasley\u2019s possession. Plaintiff objected to this evidence. Objection sustained and defendants excepted. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff and defendants appealed.\nIn this ruling of his Honor there was error. The evidence was competent and its weight was for the jury. Austin v. King, 97 N. C., 339; 1 Greenleaf Ev., Sec. 493. New trial.\nNew Trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EAiboloth, C. J. :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. R. A. Paughton and W. 0. Fields, for defendants (appellants).",
      "No counsel contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILEY PASLEY v. ALLEN RICHARDSON AND WIFE.\nAction to Recover Land \u2014 Evidence\u2014Payment of Taxes\u2014 Tax Lists.\nWhere, in the trial of an action of ejectment, the defendant, for the purpose of showing- the character of his own possession and in rebuttal of plaintiff\u2019s title, offered in evidence the tax lists for a large number of consecutive years to show that the land in dispute had been listed for taxation by him and those under whom he claimed, and that plaintiff did not list the land during any of said years ; Held, that such evidence was competent and that its weight was for the jury.\nCivil ACTION, for the recovery of land, tried before Nor-wood, J., and a jury, at March Term, 1896, of AlleghaNY Superior Court. There was verdict for the plaintiff, and from the judgment thereon defendant appealed. The facts appear in the opinion of Chief Justice Faibcloth.\nMessrs. R. A. Paughton and W. 0. Fields, for defendants (appellants).\nNo counsel contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0449-01",
  "first_page_order": 477,
  "last_page_order": 478
}