{
  "id": 11269514,
  "name": "D. E. TEAL et al v. R. A. TEMPLETON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Teal v. Templeton",
  "decision_date": "1908-11-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "32",
  "last_page": "34",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "149 N.C. 32"
    }
  ],
  "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": "97 N. C., 91",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649321
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/97/0091-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 N. C., 302",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 N. C., 563",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660620
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/122/0563-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 293,
    "char_count": 5253,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.462,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.6633844744141255e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8906301100952217
    },
    "sha256": "318ecc5ef3d53713a7f3a07ed320ede7ff5fdf4097c2539f839921c65f4d2d62",
    "simhash": "1:dbe0958c3a0d98bd",
    "word_count": 930
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:43.519867+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "D. E. TEAL et al v. R. A. TEMPLETON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clare, -O. J.\nThe objection to -jurisdiction was properly overruled. There being' no\" written complaint, the \u201csurd demanded\u201d in the summons is the test. Both causes of action were for breach of contract and the total sum demanded was $200. The Justice therefore had jurisdiction. Cromer v. Marsha, 122 N. C., 563; McPhail v. Johnson, 115 N. C., 302; Rev., 1419, 1445.\nHad it been doubtful as to the sum demanded, the remitter made it clear, even if it had been retroactive. McPhail v. Johnson, 115 N. C., 302, and cases there cited; Brantley v. Finch, 97 N. C., 91. But it is clear the plaintiff was suing for breach of contract and not for the $250 due for rent, if contract had- not been broken.\n\u25a0 The defendant was not entitled to judgment for the counterclaim filed in the Justice\u2019s court on the ground that no reply had been there filed, for the pleadings were oral and, besides, the trial in the Superior Court was de novo, and the Judge in his discretion allowed a reply to be filed. There was no ground for motion to nonsuit. Besides, the defendant waived fit by introducing evidence, and not renewing motion at the close of all evidence.\n' - The exception that the contract was not in writing cannot -avail. A lease for three years -or less is not required to be in writing. The statute of. frauds was not pleaded. Besides, the defendant could not take the timber and refuse to pay for it. But if the statute of frauds were pleaded, it would not necessarily have affected the jurisdiction of Justice of the .Peace, for \u201ctitle to land\u201d was not drawn in controversy. \u2022There was no recovery on this cause of action.\nBoth parties testified that it was agreed that the contract should, be reduced to writing, but failure to do so did not invalidate the contract. It only affected the mode of proving the contract. In fact, it was put' in writing, but the defendant \u2022refused to sign it. No exception was taken on the trial to \u00bfproving value of the timber in excess of 22 1-2 cents per tree. Had this, been done, the Judge would doubtless have allowed \u2022plaintiff to amend his allegation. .\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clare, -O. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robinson & Oaudle and J. W. Gulledge for plaintiff.",
      "McLendon & Thbmas for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "D. E. TEAL et al v. R. A. TEMPLETON.\n(Filed 5 November, 1908).\n1- Jurisdiction \u2014 Justices of the Peace \u2014 Contract\u2014Amount Involved.\nThe test of the jurisdiction of a Justice of the Peace is the sum demanded in the summons, and when the sum so demanded in a suit upon contract does not exceed $200, he has jurisdiction, though it may appear on the Justice\u2019s docket that a greater sum could have been demanded on the facts alleged. \u25a0\n2. Same \u2014 Appeal\u2014Remitter.\nWhen, on appeal to the Superior Court from a judgment of a court of a Justice of the Peace, the amount involved is doubtful, it may be made clear by a. remitter sufficient to confer jurisdiction, even if the remitter is retroactive.\n3. Justice of the Peace \u2014 Practice\u2014Pleadings.\nJudgment upon a counterclaim set up in an action in a court of a Justice of the Peace cannot be had on the ground that no reply was filed thereto, as -the pleadings are oral in that court.\n4. Same \u2014 Appeal\u2014Discretion of Court.\nThe trial on appeal in the Superior Court from a Justice\u2019s judgment is de novo, and the Judge 'may, in his discretion, allow \u25a0 pleadings to be filed. '\n5. Evidence \u2014 Motions\u2014Nonsuit\u2014Waiver.\nA motion as of nonsuit upon the evidence, made at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence and not renewed at the close of all the evL dence, is waived.\n6. Contracts \u2014 Timber Interests \u2014 Writing \u2014 Jurisdiction \u2014 Justice\u2019s Court.\nA contract of lease for three years or less need not be in writing. Title to land is not drawn into controversy, and a Justice\u2019s court has jurisdiction.\n7. Statute of Frauds \u2014 Pleadings.\nWhen the statute-of frauds is relied upon in defense, it must be pleaded, to be available.\nActiost tried before Jones, J., and a jury, March Term, 1908, of ANSON.\nAction begun before a Justice of the Peace. The sum demanded in the warrant is \u201c$200 due by breach of contract for rent of farm and sale of timber.\u201d There was no written complaint, but on the Justice\u2019s docket the cause of action was stated, \u201cPlaintiff complains that in October, 1905, he rented his farm to defendant for the year 1906 for $250, and sold him a lot of timber to cut on certain land, the defendant to cut all trees that would measure 8 inches at the stump at 22 1-2 cents per tree, and that the defendant had broken said contract.\u201d The defendant denied the contract of renting, pleaded counterclaim for over-payment as-to trees, and demurred to the jurisdiction. The Justice gave judgment for plaintiff. On appeal, in the Superior Court, the defendant moved to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. The plaintiff stated that he had at no time demanded in excess of $200, and- as further precaution entered a remitter, of all above that sum. His evidence showed a renting of land to defendant for $250, breach of contract, and plaintiff renting to another for $150. The jury found this to be so and gave the plaintiff verdict for $100. It also found that the defendant had broken the contract as to cutting the- timber, but that there was nothing due the plaintiff on that above what he had paid. Judgment. Appeal .by defendant. \u25a0\nRobinson & Oaudle and J. W. Gulledge for plaintiff.\nMcLendon & Thbmas for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0032-01",
  "first_page_order": 66,
  "last_page_order": 68
}