{
  "id": 11256032,
  "name": "JANE MILLER v. W. H. GARNER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Miller v. Garner",
  "decision_date": "1916-12-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "865",
  "last_page": "866",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "172 N.C. 865"
    }
  ],
  "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": 195,
    "char_count": 2607,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.419,
    "sha256": "c233bb51139780d5e0593cc73ee9c31a21d22a151e05d00e78782ddbfaa33ffa",
    "simhash": "1:511916d9b23108ff",
    "word_count": 456
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:21:58.562423+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JANE MILLER v. W. H. GARNER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Feu CtutiAM.\nWe have given careful consideration to the case presented in the record, and are of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed.\nIt appears that the land in question was owned by Asenath Cox,, and in 1912 she, being then 85 years of age, conveyed the same to defendant W. H. Garner, one of ber tenants, tbe deed being witnessed by Artemus Garner, a brother of tbe grantee; that three years thereafter said Asenath Cox died, and the deed being then put on record, plaintiffs, the heirs at law of Asenath Cox, brought the present action to set aside the deed, on the ground that same was never executed by said Asenath Cox; that it was not her act and deed, and, second, on the ground of fraud and undue influence on the part of the grantee and his relatives, etc.\nThe jury rendered the following verdict: \u201cIs the deed of 29 February, 1912, the act and deed of Asenath Cox, deceased? Answer: No/ \u201d and from judgment on the verdict defendant excepted and appealed.\nDuring the progress of the trial there were several exceptions to the rulings of the court on questions of evidence.\nAs now advised, we see no error in these rulings, but the exceptions involved having any significance wire to testimony bearing on the questions of fraud and undue influence, and all of the evidence in this \u25a0aspect of the case, in clear and explicit terms, was withdrawn from the \u25a0consideration of the jury and the cause was submitted on the single issue as to the execution of the deed. This was purely a question of fact which has been determined by the jury in favor of plaintiffs, and, \u2022as stated, we find no error in the record and certainly none that gives the defendant any just ground of complaint.\nThe judgment is,_ therefore, affirmed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Feu CtutiAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hammer & Kelly for. plaintiff.",
      "Seawett & Land for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JANE MILLER v. W. H. GARNER.\n(Filed 6 December, 1916.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Trials\u2014Evidence, Withdrawn \u2014 Objections and Exceptions.\nWhere a deed is sought to he set aside for mental incapacity of the grantor at the time, and also for fraud and undue influence of the grantee, and the trial judge has withdrawn from the consideration of the jury the evidence upon the latter phase of the case relating to the \u00bfllegect fraud, etc., hut the jury have answered the issue as to the validity of the deed in the negative: Held, exceptions to the competency of some of the evidence withdrawn becomes immaterial.\nActxoN to set aside a deed and recover land, tried before Courier, and a jury, at July Term, 1916, of Randolph.\n\u25a0 There was verdict for plaintiffs. Judgment, and defendant excepted and appealed.\nHammer & Kelly for. plaintiff.\nSeawett & Land for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0865-01",
  "first_page_order": 931,
  "last_page_order": 932
}