{
  "id": 11269894,
  "name": "H. V. SUTTON v. HANNAH LYONS et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sutton v. Lyons",
  "decision_date": "1911-09-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "3",
  "last_page": "6",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "156 N.C. 3"
    }
  ],
  "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": "128 N. C., 160",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 N. C., 168",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 N. C., 341",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 336,
    "char_count": 5741,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.427,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.982713409001623e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7407819915369583
    },
    "sha256": "c08fb00f50e3fd2bbb082e6687295a70877d9b7241450b0922d1faba24797073",
    "simhash": "1:7e419ae0f2778019",
    "word_count": 1015
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:09:22.906707+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. V. SUTTON v. HANNAH LYONS et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "AlleN, J.,\nafter stating tbe ease: In our opinion, there was evidence fit to be submitted to tbe jury. It is not conclusive in its nature, and may be weakened or strengthened, when all tbe facts are developed.\nTbe admission that she is tbe owner of tbe land on which tbe mill is located is some evidence that she is tbe owner of tbe mill. If affixed to tbe soil it would be a part of tbe land, nothing else appearing, and if not, and it was personalty, tbe fact that it is on her land is evidence of possession, and evidence of tbe possession of personalty is evidence of title, in tbe absence of other proof. There is also evidence that tbe defendant was exercising dominion over tbe property, as she says she bad given direction for tbe plaintiff to stay off tbe premises.\nTbe circumstance that tbe mill \u201cis situated\u201d on tbe land, and \u201chas not been in operation during tbe past twelve months,\u201d is entitled to some weight, as ordinarily valuable property, not in use, is not left so long on tbe land of another.\nIf there is evidence that tbe defendant is tbe owner of tbe mill on her land, and sawing her timber, this could be considered by tbe jury on tbe question of tbe operation of tbe mill.\n\u201cWhere tbe plaintiff has suffered an injury from tbe negligent management of a vehicle, such as a boat, car or carriage, it is sufficient prima- facie evidence that tbe negligence was imputable to tbe defendant to show that be was tbe owner of tbe thing, without proving affirmatively that tbe person in charge was tbe defendant\u2019s servant. It lies with tbe defendant to show that tbe person in charge was not bis servant, leaving him to show, if be can, that tbe property was not under bis control at tbe time, and that tbe accident was occasioned by tbe fault of a stranger, an independent contractor or other person, for whose negligence tbe owner would not be answerable. 1 Sherm. and Redf. Neg., 71. Any other rule, especially where persons are dealing with corporations, which can act only through agents and servants, would render it almost impossible for a plaintiff to recover for injuries sustained by defective machinery or negligent use of machinery.\u201d Midgette v. Manufacturing Co., 150 N. C., 341.\nThe abstract of taxes was not admissible in evidence. It was offered to show that Tate was the agent of the defendant, but it amounted to no more than a declaration, and an agency cannot be proved in this way.\n\u201cThat an agency must be proved aliunde the declarations of the alleged agent is elementary law, and this is true both as to the establishment of the agency and the nature and extent of the authority.\u201d West v. Grocery Co., 138 N. C., 168. It may, however, be established by the testimony of the agent under oath. Machine Co. v. Seago, 128 N. C., 160.\nThe judgment of nonsuit is set aside and a new trial ordered.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "AlleN, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. M. Bond and Ward & Grimes for plaintiff.",
      "J. G. B. Ehringhaus and E. F. Aydlett for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. V. SUTTON v. HANNAH LYONS et al.\n(Filed 13 September, 1911.)\n1. Negligence \u2014 Defective Machinery \u2014 Sawmill \u2014 Ownership\u2014Evidence.\nFor tlie purposes of plaintiff\u2019s action for damages alleged to have been received at the defendant\u2019s sawmill while at work as an employee, evidence which tends to show that the mill was attached to defendant\u2019s land as a part of the realty, or,\u00ab if unattached thereto, that it was easily moved, remained on the land for a year unused, and defendant\u2019had ordered the plaintiff not to go on the premises, is evidence of ownership.\n2. Evidence \u2014 Personal Property \u2014 Possession\u2014Title. The possession of personal property is evidence of ownership.\n3. Same \u2014 Operation.\nThe plaintiff sued for damages alleged to have been received, while working for defendant at his. sawmill. Defendant denied the ownership of the mill or that he operated it: Held, evidence that defendant was the owner of the mill on her land, which was sawing her timber, was some evidence that the defendant was operating it.\n4. Principal and Agent \u2014 Tax List \u2014 Declarations\u2014Evidence.\nAn abstract of taxes made by one purporting to be an agent is incompetent as against tbe principal in the absence of other evidence of agency, it being necessary that an agency be proved aliunde the declarations of the agent.\n5. Principal and Agent \u2014 Evidence Aliunde.\nAgency may be proved by the testimony of the agent.\nAppeal from Justice, J., at tbe February Term, 1911, of Cueeituck.\nThis is. an action to recover damages for personal injury. Tbe plaintiff alleges tbat be was injured by tbe negligence of tbe defendant on 7 August, 1906, while working at ber mill, and tbat the negligence consisted in a defect in tbe machinery. Tbe defendant denies negligence, and also denies that she was tbe owner of tbe mill or tbat she operated it.\nTbe defendant admits in ber answer tbat tbe mill is located on ber land, and tbat it was engaged in sawing some of tbe timber on tbe land, but says tbat it bas not been in operation for twelve months. The defendant further alleges tbat tbe plaintiff was a trespasser in going upon said premises, and tbat be was there contrary to tbe express orders and directions of tbe defendant.\nIt was in evidence tbat W. J. Tate managed tbe mill, and for tbe purpose of showing tbat be was agent of tbe defendant Lyon, 1[he plaintiff offered in evidence tbe tax list- of tbe plaintiff for 1906, signed \u201cW. J. Tate, agent,\u201d which was excluded, and tbe plaintiff excepted.'\nThere was some evidence of negligence, and tbat this was tbe cause of tbe plaintiff\u2019s injury, but bis Honor, being of opinion tbat there was no evidence tbat tbe defendant Lyon was tbe owner of tbe mill and operated it, entered a judgment of non-suit, on motion of tbe defendant, and tbe plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nW. M. Bond and Ward & Grimes for plaintiff.\nJ. G. B. Ehringhaus and E. F. Aydlett for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0003-01",
  "first_page_order": 43,
  "last_page_order": 46
}