{
  "id": 8659045,
  "name": "ROWE v. CAPE FEAR LUMBER CO.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rowe v. Cape Fear Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1901-10-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "97",
  "last_page": "98",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "129 N.C. 97"
    }
  ],
  "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": "128 N. C., 301",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660071
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/128/0301-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 201,
    "char_count": 2525,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.394,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1625536277511474e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5844207519434531
    },
    "sha256": "53ea48881616e6a1b83995a0cc593700090124dcdf544a7ef2bd0004f668b819",
    "simhash": "1:464849ea441fc8fa",
    "word_count": 472
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:26.986874+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ROWE v. CAPE FEAR LUMBER CO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eubohes, G. J.\nThis case was before ns at the last tem\u00ed of the Court (reported in 128 N. C., 301), and is here again on a petition to rehear.\nUpon the argument, the defendant abandoned its claims to a rehearing as to the two tracts on the southeast side of Oatskin Swamp, and the only question now before us is as to whether the defendant is entitled to a rehearing as to the tract lying on the north side of Catskin, and we think it L.\nIt was not contended in the petition, nor in the argument, that there were errors in the principles or statements of law contained in the former opinion. But it was contended that a deed from Alexander Casteen to Ezekiel Chadwick, dated December 1, 1859, had been overlooked, which would have changed the judgment of the Court as to the tract on the north side of the swamp; 'and this is so.\nThis deed calls for the nun of the swamp, while the deed from Chadwick to the defendant does not. These deeds are not set out in full in the record, but simply by dates and boundaries, preceded and followed by much oral evidence\u2014 the deed to the plaintiff being on the eighteenth page, and the deed from Oasteer. to Chadwick being on the twenty-fourth. page of the record. In this way the last-mentioned deed was overlooked by the Court. This deed does not put the title to the land in the defendant, but it takes the title out of the State. And the State having no title to this land in 1893, at the date of plaintiff\u2019s grant, he got no title; and as the plaintiff had to recover upon the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the defendant\u2019s title, he must fail as to the tract north of the run.\nTherefore, without changing or modifying any principle of law enunciated in our opinion at the last term of Court, the judgment then rendered is modified, on account of ;he \u2022oversight of the deed from C asteen to Chadwick, to the extent of declaring error as to that part of the land sued for on the north side of the swamp. And t\u00edre petition to rehear is allowed as to the u act on the north side of the swamp, but not as to the other tracts. Costs of rehearing to be divided ''\u00ablially between plaintiff and defendant.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eubohes, G. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rountree \u00a3 Carr, for the petitioner.",
      "Stevens, Beaslev c(: Weeks, in opposition."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROWE v. CAPE FEAR LUMBER CO.\n(Filed October 15, 1901.)\nTRESPASS \u2014 Grant.\nWhere a deed takes title to land out of the State, the plaintiff can not recover against defendant under a subsequent grant from the State.\nPistittoN to rebear. Modified. For former opinion see 128 N. 0., 301.\nRountree \u00a3 Carr, for the petitioner.\nStevens, Beaslev c(: Weeks, in opposition."
  },
  "file_name": "0097-01",
  "first_page_order": 129,
  "last_page_order": 130
}