{
  "id": 11269696,
  "name": "C. C. SMITH, Jr., v. NEW BERN LUMBER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. New Bern Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1908-12-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "40",
  "last_page": "41",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "150 N.C. 40"
    }
  ],
  "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": "131 N. C., 20",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658531
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/131/0020-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 195,
    "char_count": 2975,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.476,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2391156781727429
    },
    "sha256": "3225eb46039328a506ae73b46d51df931dd12a6680c4d2b2f891df57d2cc514b",
    "simhash": "1:208769abde9f82aa",
    "word_count": 499
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:20.077008+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. C. SMITH, Jr., v. NEW BERN LUMBER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nIt is admitted in the amended answer of the defendant that it claims title to all the timber of certain kinds and dimensions by virtue of the timber deeds from the plaintiff to Heath, and thence by mesne conveyances to the defendant. The timber was cut and the entry made on the lands for the purpose of cutting it in pursuance of such deeds. In consequence the defendant would be estopped from denying plaintiff\u2019s title to the land in an action brought to recover damages for a violation of tbe contract by cutting timber of other kinds and dimensions than such as is authorized by the contract. Monds v. Lumber Co., 131 N. C., 20.\nIt will be seen from the defendant\u2019s amended answer that the only issue raised by the pleadings is the liability of the defendant for such wrongful cutting. The defendant\u2019s answer sets up that the cutting was done by an independent contractor, over whom it had no control.. As to whether Heath was cutting for defendant, as its agent, or under an independent contract, was a question under the evidence in this case for the jury. The defendant offered no evidence as to its relations with Heath, but rested its case upon the evidence offered by plaintiff.\nThe evidence introduced by plaintiff made out a prima facie ease and was amply sufficient to go to the jury, both upon that question and as to the wrongful cutting of timber, etc., not authorized by the timber contract.\nWe have examined the record with our accustomed care, and fail to find any error necessitating a new trial.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Warren & Warren, Simmons, Ward & Allen for plaintiff.",
      "W. D. McIver for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. C. SMITH, Jr., v. NEW BERN LUMBER COMPANY.\n(Filed 22 December, 1908.)\n1. Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Timber\u2014Title, Source of \u2014 Description-Estoppel \u2014 Breach of Contract.\nDefendant, claiming title to timber by mesne conveyances from plaintiff, is estopped to deny plaintiff\u2019s title to the lands in an action to recover damages for cutting timber of other kinds and dimensions than the conveyances specify.\n2. Timber \u2014 Independent Contractor \u2014 Prima Facie Case \u2014 Questions for Jury.\nIn this case defendant \u2022 offered no evidence. Plaintiff\u2019s evidence made out a 'prima facie ease, and the questions of independent contractor and a wrongful cutting of plaintiff\u2019s timber were for the jury.\nActioN tried before W. B. Allen, J., and a jury, at Fall Term, 1908, of Jones, to recover damages for cutting timber upon certain lands belonging to plaintiff.\n.These issues were submitted to the jury:\n1. \u201cWas the plaintiff the owner of the land described in the complaint?\u201d Answer: \u201cYes; a one-half interest.\u201d\n2. \u201cIf so, did the defendant wrongfully cut timber thereon not conveyed by the deeds of 0. O. Smith to O. M. Heath?\u201d Answer: \u201cYes.\u201d\n3. \u201cIf so, did defendant wrongfully consume lightwood therefrom ?\u201d Answer: \u201cYes.\u201d\n4. \u201cWhat damage, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover?\u201d Answer: \u201cThree hundred dollars.\u201d\nFrom the judgment rendered the defendant appealed.\nWarren & Warren, Simmons, Ward & Allen for plaintiff.\nW. D. McIver for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0040-01",
  "first_page_order": 84,
  "last_page_order": 85
}