{
  "id": 8661326,
  "name": "VANDERBILT v. PICKELSIMER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Vanderbilt v. Pickelsimer",
  "decision_date": "1901-06-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "556",
  "last_page": "557",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "128 N.C. 556"
    }
  ],
  "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": 170,
    "char_count": 1841,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.373,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.811183091813877e-08,
      "percentile": 0.36181800560573224
    },
    "sha256": "7e7918b03351e32fe8530dfcd04f520635a5772038caa0079292e384e3d623c2",
    "simhash": "1:97789101ba3812cc",
    "word_count": 319
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:14.013877+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "VANDERBILT v. PICKELSIMER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MONTGOMERY, J.\nT'be plaintiff undertook to show title in himself to> the tract of land described in the complaint, not by proving title out of the State by grant and mesne conveyance to himself, but by showing that he and tihe defendant eadh claimed the land from a- common source. Owing to the confusion in the arrangement of the evidence, the absence of several deeds 'and papers which are of importance, and some inconsistency in his Honor\u2019s rulings, we are not prepared to say that the plaintiff made out his claim, and we think the case ought to go back for a new trial.\nIt must be said that his Honor, in malting up> the case on appeal (counsel having disagreed), was without his notes of the trial, or other papers, and without the assistance of counsel, who were notified of the time and place, but did not attend. Without fault on his part, months elapsed after the trial and before the case wias made up. He states all these matters and concludes by saying: \u201cI have, after the lapse of so long a time, after the hearing of the case under the circumstances, labored under muicih difficulty iu prep>aximg a statement which is not satisfactory.\u201d\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MONTGOMERY, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Merrimon & Merrimonfor tibe plaintiffs.",
      "George A. BhuforcL, for tibe defend\u00edante."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "VANDERBILT v. PICKELSIMER.\n(Filed June 7, 1901.)\nNEW TRIAL \u2014 Unintelligible Record \u2014 Appeal\u2014Supreme Court.\nWhere, in the case on appeal as made up by the trial judge, there is confusion in the arrangement of the evidence, several deeds and papers of importance lacking, and some inconsistency in the rulings of the court, a new trial will be ordered.\nActioN by Gr. W. Vanderbilt and others against R. J. Picfcelsimer and others, heard by Judge O. H. Allen and a jury, at Fall Term, 1900, of the Superior Court of Transylvania County. From a judgment for Hie plaintiffs, the defendants appealed.\nMerrimon & Merrimonfor tibe plaintiffs.\nGeorge A. BhuforcL, for tibe defend\u00edante."
  },
  "file_name": "0556-01",
  "first_page_order": 592,
  "last_page_order": 593
}