{
  "id": 8658067,
  "name": "N. B. HERRING v. W. H. HARDISON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Herring v. Hardison",
  "decision_date": "1900-02-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "75",
  "last_page": "77",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "126 N.C. 75"
    }
  ],
  "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": 187,
    "char_count": 2962,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.377,
    "sha256": "c98e68dcfbe9f455b7f506693178557651e7fa5084848b1714d6ff8b1c685e57",
    "simhash": "1:64107361c6c658d1",
    "word_count": 511
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:36:28.883277+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "N. B. HERRING v. W. H. HARDISON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Faircloth, C. J.\nTlie plaintiff contracted and sold to the defendant \u201call of his estate, right, title and interest in and to all pine and poplar timber measuring\u2019 ten inches and above on the stump when cut (for mill logs) now growing, being and situated upon a certain tract of land in Edgecombe County/\u2019 described as follows, etc.\nThe plaintiff insists that the defendant can only cut pine and poplar trees measuring ten inches at the stump, for the pm-pose of converting the logs into lumber. The defendant claims the right to cut all pine and poplar trees, fitting the description in size, and to convert the logs into lumber, wood or otherwise, as he may prefer.\nThe injunctive order appealed from restrains the defendant \u201cfrom cutting and removing from the land described in the\u2019 complaint any trees other than pine and poplar timber which measures ten inches at the stump- when cut \u201d and the order is continued till the final hearing.\nIn the absence of any direct authority, we must construe the language in the contract reasonably, as it appears to us, and that is that -the defendant may cut all pine and poplar trees of the required size and suited for milling purposes, i. e., for lumber, and no other trees, and that he may convert such trees into lumber, wood or otherwise as he may prefer. In this view the plaintiff is compensated, and retains all his pines and poplar trees unsuited for milling purposes, and the defendant is allowed to do as he chooses with his own. The term \u201cfor mill logs\u201d is descriptive of the trees that may be cut, and does not restrict th.e use of such dogs by the defendant. The order appealed from, is affirmed with this modification.\nModified and affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Faircloth, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Jacob Battle and Shepherd & Shepherd, for appellant.",
      "Messrs. John L. Bridgers, and Gilliam & Gilliam, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "N. B. HERRING v. W. H. HARDISON.\n(Decided February 27, 1900.)\nSale of Groivvng Timber.\n1. A sale to defendant of all pine and poplar timber measuring 10 inches and above on the stump when cut (for mill logs), now growing on a certain described tract of plaintiff, confines the defendant to the cutting of all pine and poplar trees of the required size and suited for milling purposes, and no other trees, and he may convert such trees into lumber, cord-wood, or otherwise as he may prefer.\n2. The term \"for mill logs\u201d is descriptive of the trees that may be cut, and does not restrict the use of such logs by the defendant.\nActioN pending in Edgeco\u00fcvcbe Superior Court for in-junctive relief against the alleged breach of contract in cutting growing timber heard before Bryan, J., at Chambers, December 21, 1899.\nHis Honor restrained the defendant from cutting and removing from the lands described in complaint any trees other than pine and poplar timber which measures ten inches a.t the stump when, cut. Plaintiff excepted and appealed. The contract, contentions of the parties, and construction by the Court are stated in the opinion.\nMessrs. Jacob Battle and Shepherd & Shepherd, for appellant.\nMessrs. John L. Bridgers, and Gilliam & Gilliam, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0075-01",
  "first_page_order": 113,
  "last_page_order": 115
}