{
  "id": 11270203,
  "name": "BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF MACON COUNTY v. W. J. ZACHARY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Board of Commissioners v. Zachary",
  "decision_date": "1912-12-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "222",
  "last_page": "223",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "161 N.C. 222"
    }
  ],
  "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": 126,
    "char_count": 1142,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.438,
    "sha256": "cf48a403386f3208d5a4c479f672239558b2cae12daba222b086c2f6173ad03c",
    "simhash": "1:1f876c593d9cdc02",
    "word_count": 204
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:55:28.078438+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF MACON COUNTY v. W. J. ZACHARY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe matter at issue in this case is the true location of the public square in the town of Franklin. We think the question is one of fact almost exclusively, and that there was no substantial error committed in submitting it to the jury.-\nNo- error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Frank Bay for 'plcmdiff.",
      "George L. J ones and B. D. Sisk for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF MACON COUNTY v. W. J. ZACHARY.\n(Filed 14 December, 1912.)\nEvidence \u2014 Questions for Jury.\nThis action, to locate the boundaries of a public square of a town, involves an issue of fact, upon which' the verdict o.f the jury is conclusive.\nAppeal by defendant from Lane, J., at Spring Term, 1912, of Macow.\nCivil action. These issues were submitted:\n1. Is the plaintiff the owner of and entitled to the possession of the land described in the amended complaint of the plaintiff? Answer: Yes.\n2. Is the defendant in the. wrongful possession of any part thereof, and if so, what part ? Answer: All his possessions south of the red line indicated by the map, being 8 feet and 4 inches covered by the front part of the building on the lot.\nFrom the judgment rendered, defendant appealed.\nJ. Frank Bay for 'plcmdiff.\nGeorge L. J ones and B. D. Sisk for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0222-01",
  "first_page_order": 266,
  "last_page_order": 267
}