{
  "id": 11271014,
  "name": "JOHN BROOKS et al. v. DAN SHOOK et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brooks v. Shook",
  "decision_date": "1908-05-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "630",
  "last_page": "631",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "147 N.C. 630"
    }
  ],
  "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": 165,
    "char_count": 2375,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.463,
    "sha256": "1d5e24ae30e3de921266d73056387c7fa3e87c082092e401cd056aca2d2ad815",
    "simhash": "1:b853672f6115c6e2",
    "word_count": 405
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:12.008409+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN BROOKS et al. v. DAN SHOOK et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ClaeK, C. J.\nEjectment, the crucial question being the location of a certain corner. The plaintiff, on cross-examination,'was asked if George Brooks (now long deceased), under whom his title was derived, was not present when the survey was made from the corner now claimed by defendant. The witness replied that he was, and \u201cobjected to the survey and said, \u2018You are running from the wrong point.\u2019 \u201d The object of the question was, of course, to get a quasi admission against the interest of George Brooks, and the answer of the witness completely negatived such admission. The plaintiff excepts because, on redirect examination, he was not allowed to state that George Brooks on that occasion further said that the true corner was where the plaintiff now claims. This was a declaration in his own interest, and incompetent. The plaintiff relies on the principle.that, the defendant having called out part of a conversation, he is entitled to the balance. But the defendant \u2022 did not call for any conversation. He sought to get the benefit of a quasi admission from the presence of George Brooks at the former survey and his not making objection. The witness having answered that George Brooks did .make objection, saying this was the wrong point, there is no reason why the plaintiff should be allowed to go further .and bring out evidence of declarations of George \u00abBrooks in his own favor as to where the corner really was. It is enough that the witness negatived any inference from George Brooks\u2019 presence that he admitted that it was at this place.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ClaeK, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Zebulon Weaver and F. W. Thomas for plaintiff.",
      "Frank Garter, IT. G. Ghedester and Wells & Bwain for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN BROOKS et al. v. DAN SHOOK et al.\n(Filed 20 May, 1908).\nEvidence \u2014 Admissions\u2014Declarations, Incompetent.\nWhen, in locating a comer o\u00ed land in ejectment proceedings, plaintiff: was asked on cross-examination, for the purpose of a quasi admission, if B., the one under whom he claimed, was present at the time of a certain survey, which was negatived by his answer, it was incompetent on redirect examination for the witness to state that on that occasion B. said the true corner was not there, but where plaintiff now claims, as this was his testimony of a declaration made by B. in his own interest.\nActioN tried before Cooke, J., and a jury, at May Term, 1907, of Buncombe.\nPlaintiff appealed.\nZebulon Weaver and F. W. Thomas for plaintiff.\nFrank Garter, IT. G. Ghedester and Wells & Bwain for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0630-01",
  "first_page_order": 668,
  "last_page_order": 669
}