{ "id": 8657665, "name": "A. CAPEHART et al., executors of W. J. Capehart, v. W. P. BURRUS and wife", "name_abbreviation": "Capehart v. Burrus", "decision_date": "1899-02-28", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "48", "last_page": "50", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "124 N.C. 48" } ], "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": "72 N. C., 240", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8691986 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/72/0240-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 N. C., 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657054 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/122/0067-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 N. C., 608", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "122 N. C., 119", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657402 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/122/0119-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 292, "char_count": 4078, "ocr_confidence": 0.453, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.5114560459445315e-08, "percentile": 0.34441544661484125 }, "sha256": "f69aa93701effe0c53c02a8d71e7dd49d21730596b7ae503e3f19071645e2a55", "simhash": "1:53c0f2a0a6320c88", "word_count": 718 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:09:58.946028+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "A. CAPEHART et al., executors of W. J. Capehart, v. W. P. BURRUS and wife." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Euroiies, J.\nTbe purpose of tbis action was to obtain a judicial construction of tbe will of W. I. Capebart, and was decided by tbis Court at February Term, 1898 (122 N. C., 119).\nTbis is a petition to rehear tbe cause for alleged errors in tbe decision then made.\nTbis Court does not claim that it does not sometimes com? mit errors in its decisions. This is in fact admitted by its providing, by its own Rules, bow a bearing may b\u00e9 bad.\nBut to entitle a party to a rebearing tbe error should be manifest. It is not sufficient that respectable authority may be found, from which a reasonable argument may be made, to prove that the decision was erroneous. Such authorities may be found, and such\u2019 argument may be made in almost every case of importance, while the authorities and arguments sustaining the decision are as strong, or stronger, than those against it. This is manifested by every case that comes to this Court upon appeal. They have all been decided by the Court below; they can only come to this Court upon questions of law; each side is represented by learned attorneys ; they have different opinions as to the law involved in the case, and it comes here by appeal that this difference of opinion may be settled. Both sides sustain their contentions by authority and by argument. But they can not both be right; they can not both win; and one or the other must lose.\nIt is important to litigants that their cases should be properly decided, and this is not the only importance attaching to an opinion of this Court. If it is erroneous, it may be used as a precedent and lead to other erroneous decisions. But it is less likely to have this effect in cases construing wills than in almost any other case.\nIt is said by this Court in Brawley v. Collins, 88 N. C., 608: \u201cIt is seldom that we can derive any aid from an examination of adudged cases, as we have had occasion before to remark, in consequence of the great diversity of terms in which a testator expresses himself, and hence each case must be determined by itself.\u201d Thus showing that such decisions are not considered of the same importance, as precedents, as are decisions upon other matters.\nBut while it is important that a case should be decided right, it is important that it should be decided, and that there should be' an end to the litigation.\nIt was said in Weisel v. Cobb, 122 N. C., 67, which was a petition to rehear (decided at the same term that the decision in this case was rendered), that \u201cevery case coming before this Court is thoroughly investigated and carefully considered, and while we are liable to error \u2014 which we are always ready to correct \u2014 that error must be clearly pointed out to us before we can undertake to set aside a solemn, adjudication involving the rights of others. This is the clearly defined policy of this Court, and has been frequently enunciated in unmistakable terms. In Watson v. Dodd, 72 N. C., 240, Chief Justice PeaRSON, speaking for the Court, says: \u201cThe weightest considerations make it the duty of the court to adhere to their decisions. No case ought to be reversed upon petition to rehear, unless it was -decided hastily, or some material point was overlooked, or some direct authority was not called to the attention of the Court.\u201d To support this position, the learned justice who wrote the opinion of the Court cited more than a dozen cases.\nThis case was fully and carefully-considered when the decision was made, and upon a careful reconsideration we see no satisfactory reason for reversing the decision heretofore made.\nPetition dismissed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Euroiies, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Messrs. Simmons, Pou & Ward, for petitioners.", "Mr. F. D. Winston, contra." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "A. CAPEHART et al., executors of W. J. Capehart, v. W. P. BURRUS and wife.\n(Decided February 28, 1899).\nRehearing \u2014 Stare Decisis, Interest Reipublicae, ut finis litium.\nNo case ought to be reversed upon petition to rehear, unless it is clearly shown to have been incorrectly decided.\nPetxtioN to Rehear tbis cause, relating to tbe construction of tbe will of W. J. Capehart, decided at February Term,. 1898 (122 N. 0., 119).^\nMessrs. Simmons, Pou & Ward, for petitioners.\nMr. F. D. Winston, contra." }, "file_name": "0048-01", "first_page_order": 76, "last_page_order": 78 }