{
  "id": 8658920,
  "name": "BROWN v. MORISEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. Morisey",
  "decision_date": "1901-04-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "138",
  "last_page": "140",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "128 N.C. 138"
    }
  ],
  "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": "126 N. C., 772",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8662239
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/126/0772-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 N. C., 292",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659085
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/124/0292-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N. C., 788",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655598
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/116/0788-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 241,
    "char_count": 3445,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.398,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43891014495439695
    },
    "sha256": "47f35db7f072b0ff2c4a7c6608b83621efd010e0459191fef86d245deeee1642",
    "simhash": "1:371812270414cecb",
    "word_count": 613
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:14.013877+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BROWN v. MORISEY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eukci-ies, J.\nThis is an action for dower in the lands described in the complaint, the defendant being in possession claiming said land as his own and denying plaintiff\u2019s right to dower.\nThe plaintiff is the widow of George Brown, who, she alleges, was tibe owner of said land at the time of Ms death, which occurred during the late war beitwen the States. To establish her right to dower, it was necessary for her to establish title in her husband at the time of his death. This she undertook to do by showing a deed from one Absalom Best to her husband, dated September 4, 1354, and registered in 1855, and that she and her husband entered upon said land, under this deed, and lived upon the same for one year \u2014 when they left the land in 1855, and have never lived upon or occupied any part thereof since that time.\nWhile on the other hand the defendant introduced in evidence a deed from the Sheriff of Duplin C'ounty, dated in 1855 and registered in 1856, under which he took possession in 1856, and has had continuous possession of said land ever since that time. The execution under which the Sheriff sold and defendant bought was against one Robert Best, and, it is alleged by the plaintiff, conveyed no title to the defendant. This may be so, still it was color of title which ripened into an absolute title in seven years, unless there was some disability or special reason to rebut the presumption.\nBut the plaintiff\u2019s right to recover does not depend upon the weakness of the defendant\u2019s title, bu-t upon the strength of her own title, as it now clearly appears that the defendant does not claim under 'George Brown, husband of plaintiff. To do this, as we have said, she must show title in her husband, and this she has not done. It does not appear that Absalom Best had any title to the land; and, this being so, his deed to George Brown, husband of plaintiff, was hut color of title, which might have been ripened into title by a continuous occupation thereunder for seven years. But this was not done, as the gmntee only occupied it for one year, and therefore never became the owner thereof; while the defendant\u2019s color was ripened into a title by his holding possession thereunder for more than seven years. The lapse of tim-e does not aid color o\u00ed title without possession thereunder. Without possession, it is no. better a,t the end of fifty years than it was when it was. made. Hunnycutt v. Brooks, 116 N. C., 788.\nThis case has been, here before, upon a judgment of non-suit and was affirmed. (See 124 N. C., 292.) But this opinion was reversed on petition to rehear (126 N. C., 772), and in delivering the last opinion the Court said the plaintiff was entitled to dower. This was an inadvertence, caused by not recurring to the status of the case on appeal; and the Court below was correct in not signing the judgment presented, giving the plaintiff dower.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eukci-ies, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stevens, Beasley & WeeJcs, for the plaintiff.",
      "II. F. Faison, and Allen & Dortch, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BROWN v. MORISEY.\n(Filed April 16, 1901.)\nDOWER \u2014 Color of Title \u2014 Possession\u25a0\u2014Ejectment.\nDower interest is not shown by a widow proving only a deed to her husband, without proving title in the grantor or possession for seven years under L_e deed.\nActioN by Dicey A. Brown against D. G. Morisey, beard by Judge Frederick Moore and a jury, at December Term, 1900, of Duplin County Superior Court. Erom a judgment for the defendant, the plaintiff appealed.\nStevens, Beasley & WeeJcs, for the plaintiff.\nII. F. Faison, and Allen & Dortch, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0138-01",
  "first_page_order": 174,
  "last_page_order": 176
}