{
  "id": 8654226,
  "name": "M. HANSTEIN v. T. M. FERRELL, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hanstein v. Ferrell",
  "decision_date": "1909-10-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "150",
  "last_page": "151",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "151 N.C. 150"
    }
  ],
  "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": 128,
    "char_count": 1314,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.481,
    "sha256": "5fd9263ae5842432e0c573f44495fdf5a8a0d5b996443388b32bedf8560d64b3",
    "simhash": "1:60d8d26eac288bde",
    "word_count": 223
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:26.349792+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "M. HANSTEIN v. T. M. FERRELL, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Curiam:\nThis cause was before this Court at a former term and a new trial was directed. Upon this second trial we are of opinion, upon examination of the record, that no error has been committed. Under the form of the first issue the controversy is one of fact, and has been determined by the jury in favor of the plaintiff. We find no reversible error, and the judgment is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. B. Cooper and Faison & Wright for plaintiff.",
      "'George E. Butler and J. B. Kerr for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "M. HANSTEIN v. T. M. FERRELL, Appellant.\n(Filed 13 October, 1909.)\nIn this case the controversy being over an issue of fact, no error appearing, the judgment of the lower court was affirmed.\nAppeal from W. R. Allen, J., April Term, 1909, of SamtpsoN.\nThese issues were submitted, by consent:\n1. \u201cWhere is the dividing line between plaintiff .and defendant ?\u201d Answer: \u201cThe true line between plaintiff and defendant is twelve inches on the side next to defendant from the southeast wall of plaintiff, above the ground, along.the whole course of the wall.\u201d\n2. \u201cIs the plaintiff the-owner of the lands in controversy?\u201d Answer: \u201cYes.\u201d\n3. \u201cIf so, are defendants in wrongful possession thereof ?\u201d Answer: \u201cYes.\u201d\n4. \u201cWhat damage, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover?\u201d Answer: \u201cNo.\u201d\nFrom the judgment rendered the defendant appealed.\nF. B. Cooper and Faison & Wright for plaintiff.\n'George E. Butler and J. B. Kerr for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0150-01",
  "first_page_order": 194,
  "last_page_order": 195
}