{
  "id": 11268966,
  "name": "EDMOND SNOWDEN v. C. M. BELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Snowden v. Bell",
  "decision_date": "1914-02-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "208",
  "last_page": "209",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "166 N.C. 208"
    }
  ],
  "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., 500",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 N. C., 500",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 161,
    "char_count": 1835,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.484,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.09135214293326e-08,
      "percentile": 0.46732241918351225
    },
    "sha256": "d31c384467d9ea4e10079edf2f84b43e7746822a6bbf7c576d4c19d828de7130",
    "simhash": "1:16173fb90455feef",
    "word_count": 316
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:23:48.430184+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "EDMOND SNOWDEN v. C. M. BELL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cukiam.\nThis is the second appeal in this action. On the first appeal, which is reported in 150 N. C., 500, we held that it was error to instruct the jury to answer the issues in favor of the plaintiff if they believed the evidence, but after discussing the facts necessary to constitute an adverse user, we said: \u201cApplying these principles, we are of opinion that the plaintiff introduced evidence of an adverse user for more than twenty years, which entitled him to have bis case submitted to the jury, but that it was not of such conclusive character as to warrant a peremptory instruction in favor of the plaintiff.\u201d\nTbe evidence in tbe two records is practically tbe same, and adhering to our former decision, tbe ruling on tbe motion for judgment of nonsuit must be affirmed.\nTbe exceptions to tbe admission of evidence are without merit. It was competent to prove tbat tbe plaintiff directed bis tenants to use tbe lane, as some evidence of an adverse user under claim of right.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cukiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ehringhaus and Small and E. F. Aydlett for plaintiff.",
      "Pruden & Pruden and S. Brown Shepherd for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EDMOND SNOWDEN v. C. M. BELL.\n(Filed 18 February, 1914.)\nLimitation of Actions \u2014 Adverse Possession \u2014 Evidence\u2014Landlord and Tenant.\nWhere adverse possession is relied o\u2018n to establish title, directions of the party to his tenants to use the land is some evidence thereof. See s. c., 150 N. C., 500.\nAppeal by defendant from Bragaw, J., at September Term, 1913, Of OURRXTTTCK.\nThis is an action to establish the right to use a certain lane, described in the complaint, and to restrain the defendant from obstructing the same.\nAt tbe conclusion of tbe evidence tbe defendant moved for judgment of nonsuit, wbicb was refused, and be excepted.\nThere was a verdict and judgment in favor of tbe plaintiff, and tbe defendant appealed.\nEhringhaus and Small and E. F. Aydlett for plaintiff.\nPruden & Pruden and S. Brown Shepherd for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0208-01",
  "first_page_order": 250,
  "last_page_order": 251
}