{
  "id": 11255638,
  "name": "MARGARET D. McNEILL et al. v. D. A. BUIE et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "McNeill v. Buie",
  "decision_date": "1917-12-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "773",
  "last_page": "774",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "174 N.C. 773"
    }
  ],
  "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": 234,
    "char_count": 3667,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.463,
    "sha256": "f803db7ba118c9f56caf5b068d6c6ebb5719c78aa95d0394815addfc5425096a",
    "simhash": "1:0f35c0b182f80dcd",
    "word_count": 650
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:13:24.898604+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARGARET D. McNEILL et al. v. D. A. BUIE et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis action is to recover a tract of land containing 24 acres, and represented on map by boundaries marked D, J, H, B, 0. The plaintiffs own the land lying north and the defendants the land lying south of the locus in quo. It seems that both parties trace their title back to a common source, and that the controversy is as to the proper location of the dividing line between the two tracts. Plaintiffs contend the true dividing line is the rod line 0 B on plat. Defendants contend it is yellow line J PI.\nThe court adjudges that the true dividing line is the yellow line J H, and that plaintiffs own the lands north and defendants the lands south of it. This finding gives the locus in quo to defendants.\nThe plaintiffs file a number of exceptions to the report of the referee and also assignments of error to the judgment of the court.\nIn the view we take of the case, it is not necessary in the disposition of this appeal to discuss them.\nThe referee finds that the \u201cdefendants and those under whom they claim have been in the open, notorious, adverse and undisputed possession of the 'middle 200 acres\u2019 of the O\u2019Berry grant 'known as the Solomon Johnson old place,\u2019 up to the true dividing line between the Patrick Smith land and the Neill Buie land, for more than thirty years prior to* the commencement of this cause.\u201d\nIt is tbe middle 200 acres of the O\u2019Berry grant known as the Solomon Johnson old place, or the Patrick Smith land that defendants own and claim covers the locus in quo and runs up to the dividing line J H. It is the upper 200 acres, or Buie land, that plaintiffs own and claim runs down to O B.\nThe referee further finds \u201cThat the defendants and those under whom they claim have exercised such ownership of the uncleared land lying south of the true dividing line between the Smith and Buie land, as the land was capable of, since 1804, the date of the deed to Patrick Smith. That the plaintiffs and those under whom they claim have never exercised any continuous acts of ownership, and have never been in the actual possession of any portion of the land lying south of the true dividing line between the Smith land and the Buie land.\u201d\nThe plaintiffs except to these findings of fact upon the ground that there is no evidence to support them. \"We think there is evidence sufficient to support the finding, but this assignment of error under the rules of this Court cannot be considered, as it is deemed to have been abandoned, not having been set out and discussed in the brief. \"We think this disposes of the appeal.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Seawe.ll & Land and Manning, & Kit chin for plaintiffs.",
      "McLean, Varser & McLean for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARGARET D. McNEILL et al. v. D. A. BUIE et al.\n(Filed 5 December, 1917.)\n1. Limitation of Action \u2014 Adverse Possession \u2014 Reference\u2014Findings\u2014Appeal and Error.\nIn this action to recover land, the title to the locus in quo depending upon the true divisional line between the adjoining lands, the referee\u2019s finding in defendant\u2019s behalf approved and accepted by the trial judge, with defendant\u2019s possession and cultivation of the lands, such as it was capable of for thirty years, is sustained on appeal.\n2. Appeal and Error \u2014 Objections and Exceptions \u2014 Briefs\u2014Rules of Court.\nExceptions that are not taken or discussed in the brief are regarded as abandoned on appeal.\nCivil actioN, tried before Connor, J., at April Term, 1917, of Robe-soN, upon exceptions to report of Charles G-. Rose, referee.\nThe court adopted the findings of fact of the referee as well as his conclusions of law, and confirmed the report and rendered judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs excepted to the judgment and appealed.\nSeawe.ll & Land and Manning, & Kit chin for plaintiffs.\nMcLean, Varser & McLean for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0773-01",
  "first_page_order": 829,
  "last_page_order": 830
}