{
  "id": 8657991,
  "name": "STEPHENS v. McDONALD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stephens v. McDonald",
  "decision_date": "1903-03-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "135",
  "last_page": "136",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "132 N.C. 135"
    }
  ],
  "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": "117 N. C., 614",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653708
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/117/0614-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 N. C., 517",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275203
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/98/0517-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 180,
    "char_count": 2214,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.462,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7817273071113374e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3009024850483561
    },
    "sha256": "ad3bed7f369cb8dc5c93cdec1014174652f0e708cb3b44c0b88f504412720c81",
    "simhash": "1:64ced778e254146c",
    "word_count": 407
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:22:40.266480+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STEPHENS v. McDONALD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nThis is an action of ejectment for two tracts of land, one of 17 acres and one of 50 acres. At the close of the plaintiff\u2019s testimony the defendant moved to \u201cnon-suit the plaintiffs under the statute\u201d because they had failed to make out a case, the motion was allowed and the plaintiffs appealed. The surveyor, witness for the plaintiffs testified \u201cit is not possible to locate the 17 acre tract\u201d and without going over the testimony in detail, it is sufficient to say that his Honor\u2019s conclusion was clearly correct as to both tracts.\nIt is proper to note that, though a plat is referred to in the pleadings and evidence and is necessary to the understanding of the appeal, only two copies are sent up with the record. While the court does not require that maps, plats and similar exhibits' should be printed, the same number of copies (15) thereof should be filed as is required to be filed of the printed record and briefs. In Smith v. Fite, 98 N. C., 517, the court said that when a plat is used and referred to in the trial below, it is the duty of the appellant to have it sent up in the case, and in Whichard v. Railroad, 117 N. C., 614, the court said that it \u201cgave notice of a rule\u201d that whenever a survey and plat are necessary for the proper understanding of an appeal (in that case an action for the diversion of water) unless a survey is made and \u201c15 maps of the locality are sent up as exhibits\u201d in the case \u201cthe judgment of the court below will be affirmed or the appeal dismissed.\u201d There are very few actions of ejectment in which a plat is not indispensable for a. clear comprehension of the points involved.\nThe judgment of non-suit is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stewart & Godwin, for the plaintiffs.",
      "No counsel for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STEPHENS v. McDONALD.\n(Filed March 17, 1903.)\nAPPEAL\u2014 Transcript \u2014 Record\u2014Platt.\nThe same number o\u00ed copies of a plat referred to in the pleadings and evidence should be filed on appeal as is required to be filed of the printed record and brief.\nActioN by W. M. and W. B. Stephens against H. J. McDonald, beard by Judge O. JJ. Allen and a jury, at April (Special) Term, 1902, of the Superior Court of HarNett County. From a judgment of non-suit, the plaintiff appealed.\nStewart & Godwin, for the plaintiffs.\nNo counsel for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0135-01",
  "first_page_order": 185,
  "last_page_order": 186
}