{
  "id": 11269348,
  "name": "W. H. KEATON et al. v. SOPHIA GODFREY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Keaton v. Godfrey",
  "decision_date": "1910-02-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "16",
  "last_page": "17",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "152 N.C. 16"
    }
  ],
  "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": "150 N. C., 518",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 N. C., 305",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650278
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/109/0305-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 197,
    "char_count": 2935,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.44,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4732115656163738
    },
    "sha256": "2752ba1ea36cfa6a54e9b447928632a59cd96a1e554c7cff387012d446882d45",
    "simhash": "1:aa31b62bcc5466da",
    "word_count": 520
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:47.463636+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. H. KEATON et al. v. SOPHIA GODFREY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Beoww, J.\nIt has been ruled by this Court that an appeal lies generally from the final order of the county commissioners in a proceeding to lay off a road. When taken, it carries the whole proceeding to the Superior Court for trial de novo. Lamb v. Love, 109 N. C., 305. The proper time to appeal is when the commissioners have confirmed the report of the jurors who laid off the road and assessed damages. Sutphin v. Sparger, 150 N. C., 518.\nThe sheriff erred in selecting R. H. Welch, one of the petitioners, as one of the jurors to lay off the road and assess damages. When that fact was made known to the commissioners they should have set aside the report and directed the summoning of another jury.\nWelch was practically a party to the proceeding and disqualified to act as a juror in his own ease. It is not given to mortals generally to hold the scales of justice with untrembling hand when their own interests are being weighed.\n\u201cWhen self the wavering balance shakes, \u2019tis rarely right adjusted.\u201d\nAs the case is to be tried de novo in the Superior Court, it is not necessary to remand it to the commissioners to correct the error.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Beoww, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. M. Bond and P. W. McMuttan for plaintiff.",
      "Pruden & Pruden, J. 8. McNider, Charles Whedbee for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. H. KEATON et al. v. SOPHIA GODFREY.\n(Filed 25 February, 1910.)\n1. County Commissioners \u2014 Proceedings to Lay off Roads \u2014 Appeal, When Taken \u2014 Trial de Novo.\nAn appeal from the final order of the county commissioners in proceedings to lay off a road carries the whole matter to the Superior Court for trial de novo. The appeal is properly taken from the final order of the hoard confirming the report of the jurors.\n2. County Commissioners \u2014 Proceedings to Lay off Roads \u2014 Parties Jurors \u2014 Disqualifications.\nA petitioner in proceedings to lay off a road is disqualified to act as a juror, being a party to the proceedings; and, when such has been done, it is the duty of the county commissioners to set aside the report and direct the summoning of another jury.\nAppeal from Ward, J., Fall Term, 1909, of PeequimaNS. Civil action, tried upon an appeal by the defendant from the order of the county commissioners laying out public road across her lands.\nThe defendant moved the court to dismiss the report of the jury and to refer the matter to the county commissioners to appoint a new jury to lay off road, for that one of the jury was one of the petitioners. Overruled, and defendant excepted.\nThe defendant Godfrey then tendered an issue as to whether the proposed road was for the public good and convenience. The court, being of the opinion that the defendant Godfrey, not having appealed from the order to lay off the road, had waived her right to submit said issue, declined to submit said issue. Defendant Godfrey excepted.\nTbe court then submitted the issue as to damages. The court then signed the judgment set out in the record. Defendant excepted, and appealed.\nW. M. Bond and P. W. McMuttan for plaintiff.\nPruden & Pruden, J. 8. McNider, Charles Whedbee for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0016-01",
  "first_page_order": 62,
  "last_page_order": 63
}