{
  "id": 8690659,
  "name": "Samuel Greenlee v. John B. Tate & others, heirs of William Tate",
  "name_abbreviation": "Greenlee v. Tate",
  "decision_date": "1827-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "300",
  "last_page": "301",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Dev. 300"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 N.C. 300"
    }
  ],
  "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": "1 Hawks 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hawks",
      "case_ids": [
        11275543
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/8/0140-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 2563,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.379,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.553285487460147e-08,
      "percentile": 0.40173944504100434
    },
    "sha256": "98bb44bb0823d2f095faf36ba1096216cbc4f3b1b1393944c4a244206b89bf8a",
    "simhash": "1:1c7af415888047d6",
    "word_count": 445
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:44:07.907129+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Samuel Greenlee v. John B. Tate & others, heirs of William Tate,"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hart. Judge,\nThe question in this case, lies within narrow limits, It turns upon the fact, that the land in controversy, was surveyed by the ancestor of the Defendants, who entered it, and to whom a grant issued.\nThe principle which must decide this case against the Defendants, was established in the case of Avery v. Walker. It is there established, that no Deputy Surveyor shall be permitted to survey land for himself, and to that case I refer, instead of repeating the reasons there given in support of this position. The grant must be vacated.\nPer Curiam. \u2014 Judgment reversed, and judgment for the Plaintiff.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hart. Judge,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney-General, and Devereux, for the Plaintiff, contended,",
      "Wilson, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Samuel Greenlee v. John B. Tate & others, heirs of William Tate,\nFrom Burke.\nIt is fraudulent in law for the grantee to survey his oxvn entry.\u2014 Therefore, when tins fact was found by the Jury, and further, that the survey was fairly made, it was held that the grant must be vacated.\nThis was a petition to vacate a grant. From the petition it appeared, that the grant to the ancestor of the Defendants, issued in November, 1802 ; that in July,' 1820, a grant for a part of (he same land issued to the Plaintiff. The petition charged, that William Tate, the grantee in rhe first grant, surveyed and located his warrant of survey himself.\nFrom the petition and answer, the following issues were made up, and submitted to a Jury :\n1. Was the land surveyed according to law, and were the chain-carriers sworn ?\n2. Did William Tate, enterer and grantee, survey for himself ?\n3. Did William Tate lay before the County Surveyor, the survey made by him, arid was the same ratified and signed by the County Surveyor ?\n4. Was there any fraud in surveying the land, oUin obtaining the grant which issued to William Tate?\nThe Jury being instructed by his Honor, Judge Strange, that it was not fraudulent per se, for the grantee to survey his own entry,, found,\n1. That the land was surveyed according to law, and that the chain-carriers were sworn.\n2. That William Tate, enterer and grantee, surveyed for himself.\n3. That William Tate did lay before the County Surveyor, the survey made by him, and that the same was ratified and signed by the County Surveyor..\n4. That there was no fraud in surveying the land, or in obtaining the grant which issued to William Tate.\nUpon this verdict, judgment was rendered for the Defendants j from which the Plaintiff appealed.\nThe Attorney-General, and Devereux, for the Plaintiff, contended,\nthat it was against public policy to permit the grantee to survey his own entry. {Avery v. Walker 1 Hawks 140,).\nWilson, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0300-01",
  "first_page_order": 300,
  "last_page_order": 301
}