{
  "id": 11271068,
  "name": "M. E. HUGHES, Sr., v. D. T. PRITCHARD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hughes v. Pritchard",
  "decision_date": "1910-09-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "23",
  "last_page": "25",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "153 N.C. 23"
    }
  ],
  "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": "87 N. C., 91",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 N. C., 320",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653146
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/117/0320-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 N. C., 439",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661484
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/127/0439-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 N. C., 218",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270386
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/152/0218-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 N. C., 526",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652992
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/139/0526-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 N. C., 175",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 N. C., 80",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 N. C., 284",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274311
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/98/0284-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 298,
    "char_count": 4964,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.23912726185966826
    },
    "sha256": "6541b1cce847faba2f8e93c8fd83e27da6273f76ef8fa53a59f2393d265c5476",
    "simhash": "1:0efb3ab46426d8bb",
    "word_count": 876
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:54.157289+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "M. E. HUGHES, Sr., v. D. T. PRITCHARD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Walker, J.\nThis is a proceeding wbicb was instituted for the purpose of establishing the dividing line between a tract of land, alleged by the plaintiff be the homestead of the defendant, and an adjoining tract,- wbicb was purchased by the plaintiff at a sale under an execution issued against the defendant. In bis deed the sheriff conveyed to the plaintiff the tract of land upon wbicb be bad levied under the execution, but excepted therefrom the homestead of the defendant.\nIt appeared that the report of the appraisers, who set apart the homestead to the defendant, could not, after diligent search, be found in the clerk\u2019s office. There was evidence tending to show that an allotment of the homestead bad been made by three appraisers, at the request of the sheriff, and that their report was prepared and signed by them. This report was seen in the clerk\u2019s office among the papers in the judgment roll of the case in wbicb the execution bad been issued. A copy of the report was made and, after proving the loss of the original report, the plaintiff proposed to prove, by oral evidence and by the copy, the contents of the original report, for the purpose of showing the boundaries of the homestead and the proper location of the disputed line. This testimony was objected to by the defendant, but admitted by the court. It was clearly competent. Tbe defendant\u2019s objection was based upon the ground tbat oral evidence cannot be received to prove the contents of a judicial record, unless in a proceeding brought to establish the lost or destroyed record, under chapter 11 of the Revisal, and tbat the record thus restored by proof and the judgment of the court, is the only evidence admissible to show the contents of the lost record. This is a misapprehension of the meaning and scope of tbat enactment. It is an enabling act and it was not intended to exclude oral evidence, which was admissible at common law to prove the contents of a lost instrument, whether a deed or the record of a court. This has been well settled by the decisions of this Court. Mobley v. Watts, 98 N. C., 284, and cases cited in the annotated edition; Cox v. Lumber Co., 124 N. C., 80; Aiken v. Lyon, 127 N. C., 175; Jones v. Ballou, 139 N. C., 526; Wells v. Harrel, 152 N. C., 218. In this case the plaintiff did not depend altogether upon the memory of a witness, as to the contents of the report, but introduced an examined copy, or one which bad been compared with the original and found to be correct. This is the principal exception of the defendant, and in passing upon it, we must sustain the ruling of the court below.\nTbe failure of the appraisers to sign the report in the presence of the sheriff did not render it void, so tbat the defendant could impeach it in this collateral proceeding. It was, at most, an irregularity, and if compliance with the statute in this respect is so essential to the sufficiency of the report and the allotment of the homestead, as to constitute the omission to sign the report in the presence of the sheriff a valid objection to it, the remedy of the defendant was by a motion to set aside the report, after it bad been filed in the office of the clerk of the Superior Court. Oates v. Munday, 127 N. C., 439; Formeyduval v. Rockwell, 117 N. C., 320; Burton v. Spiers, 87 N. C., 91. Tbe other exceptions of the defendant are without merit, if they are not sufficiently considered and disposed of by what we have already said.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Walker, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. F. Aydlett, J. C. B. Ehringhaus and Pruden & Pruden for plaintiff.",
      "W. A. Worth and H. S. Ward for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "M. E. HUGHES, Sr., v. D. T. PRITCHARD.\n(Filed 14 September, 1910.)\n1. Homestead \u2014 Appraiser's Report \u2014 Lost Records \u2014 Oral Evidence.\nA purchaser of lands at an execution sale from which, defendant\u2019s homestead had been exempted and laid off, may show, after proving the loss of the original report of the appraisers, by oral evidence and by copy made thereof, the contents of the original report of the appraisers, which had been filed in the judgment roll, for the purpose of establishing the boundaries of the homestead and the proper location of a disputed lino.\n2. Lost Deeds \u2014 Records\u2014Oral Evidence \u2014 Interpretation of Statutes.\nRevisal, chapter 11, is an enabling act, and does not exclude oral evidence, admissible at common law, to prove the contents of a lost deed or record.\n3. Homestead \u2014 Appraiser\u2019s Reports \u2014 Independent Action \u2014 Collateral Attack \u2014 Procedure\u2014Motion.\nThe report of the appraisers in laying off a homestead cannot be collaterally attacked in an independent action to ascertain the boundaries, upon the ground that they did not sign the report in the presence of the sheriff. This is an irregularity which at most can only render the report voidable, and the remedy is by motion in the original proceedings to set it aside, after it has been filed in the Superior Court clerk\u2019s office.\nAppeal by defendant from Ferguson, J., at tbe March Term, 1910, of Camden.\nF. F. Aydlett, J. C. B. Ehringhaus and Pruden & Pruden for plaintiff.\nW. A. Worth and H. S. Ward for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0023-01",
  "first_page_order": 71,
  "last_page_order": 73
}