{
  "id": 8696004,
  "name": "Spier Whitaker v. John B. Cawthorne",
  "name_abbreviation": "Whitaker v. Cawthorne",
  "decision_date": "1832-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "389",
  "last_page": "390",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Dev. 389"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 N.C. 389"
    }
  ],
  "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": 217,
    "char_count": 2809,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.428,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.962691039234868e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5021470363716186
    },
    "sha256": "f174d3aa39141c3d510d4a76ec538d9aaf2a5ee568b101b7ce5e2809e0e07c47",
    "simhash": "1:8491adc71b1ff7c4",
    "word_count": 503
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:11:15.653835+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Spier Whitaker v. John B. Cawthorne."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Daniel, Judge,\nafter stating the case, proceeded: The word \u201c land, legally includeth all castles, houses and other buildings, so as passing the land or ground, the structure or building thereupon passeth therewith.\u201d (1 Thomas\u2019 Coke. 197.) \u201c If a man grant all his lands, he grants thereby all his mines of metal, and other fossils, his woods, liis waters,- and his houses, as well as his fields and meadows.\u201d (2 Bl. Com. 18.) The word \u201cland,\u201d includes not only the face of the earth, but every thing under it or over it. The stable was fixed to the land, and was in law a part of it. It could not be, nor was it severed by the unsealed writing which Ransom gave to Johnson. It remained as part of the land, and passed under the deed to James Ransom, and again it passed with the land, by the deed to the plaintiff. The written license given by Ransom, might have excused a trespass committed in entering and taking the stable, whilst he was the owner of the premises. It did not operate as a conveyance of the stable; for the stable being a part of the realty, could not pass, except by such a conveyance as would pass the land. A license to commit a trespass, is a very different thing from a conveyance which will pass the land, or any of its appurtenances. When Ransom sold the land, the stable passed, and the license to enter was revoked, it was not incorporated in the deed to Ransom, and it was therefore, as to his bargainee, a nullity.\nPer Curiam. \u2014 Judgment afeiemed:",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Daniel, Judge,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Devereux, for the defendant,",
      "Badger, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Spier Whitaker v. John B. Cawthorne.\nAn unsealed memorandum given by the owner of land, stating that A is the owner of a house upon the premises, and authorizing its removal, is a mere license to enter, and is revoked by a subsequent conveyance to B.\nTrespass qjjare ceausum eregtt, and upon not guilty pleaded, on the trial before DaNIEE, Judge, at Warren, on the last Spring Circuit, the case was, that one Robert Ransom, in the year 1826, bought the premises in dispute of one Robert R. Johnson, from whom, he received an absolute deed, and to whom he gave the following memorandum, which was without a seal: \u201cI \u201c Robert. Ransom agree that the stable next, &c. which \u201c belongs to Robert Johnson, may be removed at any \u201c time he pleases, which stable was reserved by said \u201c Johnson, in his sale, &c.\u201d The plaintiff claimed under an absolute deed from R. Ransom to James Ransom, and the defendant under a sale of the stable from Johnson\u2019s administrators. The trespass consisted of an entry by the defendant, and the removal of the stable.\nThe jury under the direction of his Honor, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.\nDevereux, for the defendant,\ncited Van Rensalaer v. Van Rensalaer, (9 John. R. 377.) Taylor v. Waters, (2 Eng. C. L. R. 140.) Tillotson v. Preston, (7 John. R. 285.)\nBadger, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0389-01",
  "first_page_order": 397,
  "last_page_order": 398
}