{
  "id": 8685739,
  "name": "Den ex dem. of James McK. Oneal et al. v. John E. Butler",
  "name_abbreviation": "Den ex dem. of Oneal v. Butler",
  "decision_date": "1831-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "94",
  "last_page": "95",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Dev. 94"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 N.C. 94"
    }
  ],
  "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": 181,
    "char_count": 2359,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.349,
    "sha256": "455b3e1ade01858e701a87b322b70e41bc215f730a3ce35257c7284ffac7bc45",
    "simhash": "1:337d79569a6eb9df",
    "word_count": 412
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:11:15.653835+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Den ex dem. of James McK. Oneal et al. v. John E. Butler."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Henderson, Chief-Justice.\nThe first exception goes m a mere matter of form. We think it should be disallowed, for we cannot but know, that the lessor of John Ben is the party complaining, and that John Ben is a fictitious person, used for the purpose of bringing the merits before the court; we must also know that the tenant in possession is the substantial defendant, and that Bichar\u00e1, Fen is likewise a fictitious person, introduced as tbe defendant, for the same reasons that John Ben is made plaintiff. We think the award is made in the suit submitted. This disposes of the first and second exceptions ; for they arc substantially the same, presented in different forms.\nWe cannot perceive any uncertainty in the award, to sustain the third exception.\nThe judgment must tie reversed, and judgment according to the award entered for the defendants. We should also confirm the award in the suit in equity between The same parties ; hut the papers are not sent up, or not a. sufficiency of them to enable us to form a decree.\nPer Curiam. \u2014 Judgment according to award.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Henderson, Chief-Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel appeared for either party in this court."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Den ex dem. of James McK. Oneal et al. v. John E. Butler.\nIf an action of ejectment be referred to arbitrators, an award, stating' the cause to be pending between the lessor of the plaintiff and the tenant in possession, without noticing the fictitious parties, is sufficient.\nEjectment, and after not guilty pleaded, the cause was referred to arbitrators, who made the following award:\n\u201c We, the undersigned, to whom was referred the <e several matters of controversy, now pending in the \u201c court of law and court of equity, for Burke, between u James McK. Oneal, &c. (the other lessors of theplain- \u201c tiff) and John E. Butler, do award that John E. Butler \u201c hold the tract of land, as set forth in the declaration in e-jectment. And likewise, Ac.\u201d The award then disposed of a suit in equity between the same parties.\nThe lessors of the plaintiff excepted to this award : 1st. Because it did not set forth the parties to the suit, they being Ben on the demise of James McK. Oneal and others v. John E. Butler.\n2d. Because the award did not conform to the submission, or the rule of reference,\n3d. Because the award was Void for uncertainty.\nHis Honor Judge Martin, on the last circuit, set aside the award, and the defendant appealed.\nNo counsel appeared for either party in this court."
  },
  "file_name": "0094-01",
  "first_page_order": 100,
  "last_page_order": 101
}