{
  "id": 8652452,
  "name": "B. F. WYNN and Wife v. ROBERT BULLOCK",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wynn v. Bullock",
  "decision_date": "1911-03-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "382",
  "last_page": "383",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "154 N.C. 382"
    }
  ],
  "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": "144 N. C., 766",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8662276
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/144/0766-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 N. C., 520",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 159,
    "char_count": 1992,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.481,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.417441169658951e-08,
      "percentile": 0.27717793585649203
    },
    "sha256": "5814b65a4ba71d421d3904a1892eacaefa7f15ed38af1d7e12915cd81d989a85",
    "simhash": "1:b31072742287a60b",
    "word_count": 350
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:16:36.957085+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "B. F. WYNN and Wife v. ROBERT BULLOCK."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brown, J.\nThis is a petition for partition in which defendant pleaded sole seizin. The defendant was adjudged to be a tenant in common with the feme plaintiff.\nThe presiding judge rendered judgment establishing the feme plaintiff\u2019s title to an undivided half interest in the land and referred the cause to the clerk to take and state an account of the rents and profits. TTpon the coming in of the report the defendant filed exceptions and demanded a jury trial. The court overruled his exceptions and confirmed the report.\nWe are unable to find in the record an exception noted at the time to the order of reference made at March Term, 1910. In the absence of such exception the defendant is taken to have acquiesced in the order and is not entitled to a jury trial. Driller Co. v. Worth, 117 N. C., 520; Roughton v. Sawyer, 144 N. C., 766.\nThe other exceptions relate to findings of fact. As they were adopted and approved by the Superior Court and there is evidence to support them, we cannot review them.\nThe conclusion of law and judgment necessarily follows from the finding of facts. The judgment is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brown, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Martin <& Oritcher and Winston & Matthews for plaintiff.",
      "A. R. Dunming for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "B. F. WYNN and Wife v. ROBERT BULLOCK.\n(Filed 22 March, 1911.)\n1. Reference \u2014 Exceptions\u2014Acquiescence.\nUpon a judgment establishing the right of one of the contesting parties as a tenant in common of lands, an exception to the order of reference of the cause to the clerk to take and state an account of the rents and profits, with a demand for a jury trial, comes too late, as by not excepting at the time of the order the party is deemed to have acquiesced therein.\n2. Reference \u2014 Evidence\u2014Judgment\u2014Appeal and Error.\nExceptions to the findings of fact by a referee, with evidence to support them, approved by the trial judge, are not reviewable on appeal.\nAppeal from Peebles, J., at December Term, 1910, of Martin;.\nAppeal by defendant from an order confirming tbe report of a referee.\nMartin <& Oritcher and Winston & Matthews for plaintiff.\nA. R. Dunming for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0382-01",
  "first_page_order": 424,
  "last_page_order": 425
}