{
  "id": 8657723,
  "name": "R. D. LUPTON v. NATHAN SPENCER et als.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lupton v. Spencer",
  "decision_date": "1918-10-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "687",
  "last_page": "687",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "176 N.C. 687"
    }
  ],
  "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": 142,
    "char_count": 1553,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.467,
    "sha256": "9964fe4d232257e6bc19d9aa99fac468630a8969f270645d9dea5a1bf6c3580d",
    "simhash": "1:9d26bf61a1d956fd",
    "word_count": 276
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:13.878101+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. D. LUPTON v. NATHAN SPENCER et als."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThere are thirty-five assignments of error relating to tbe evidence, and four to tbe charge of tbe court. We are of opinion that they are without substantial merit, and that no reversible error has been committed.\nTbe issues relate solely to tbe true location of tbe dividing line between tbe lands of plaintiff and defendant, and present almost exclusively a question of fact, which has been settled by the verdict.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moore & Dunn for plaintiff.",
      "H. L. Gibbs, F. A. Daniel, Jr., A. D. Ward, and W. F. Ward for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. D. LUPTON v. NATHAN SPENCER et als.\n(Filed 2 October, 1918.)\nPeocessioning proceeding, tried before Calvert, J., at Fall Term, 1917, of Pamlico, upon these issues:\n1. Is tbe line marked on tbe map, 0, N, M, A, tbe true dividing line between tbe plaintiff, Lupton, and tbe defendant, Sawyer? Answer: No.\n2. Is tbe line marked on tbe map, R, S, T, IT, V, W, K, A, tbe true dividing line between tbe plaintiff, Lupton, and tbe defendant, Sawyer? Answer: Yes.\n3. Is tbe line marked on tbe map, A, B, O, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, tbe true dividing line between tbe plaintiff, Lupton, and tbe. defendant, Spencer? Answer: No.\n4. Is tbe line marked on tbe map, A, K, J, tbe true dividing line between tbe plaintiff, Lupton, and tbe defendant, Spencer? Answer: Yes.\n5. Did plaintiffs wrongfully cut 'and remove trees and timber from defendant W. R. Sawyer\u2019s land, as alleged? Answer: Yes.\n6. If so, wbat damage is defendant Sawyer entitled to recover of tbe plaintiffs for sucb wrongful cutting and removal? Answer: $65.\nMoore & Dunn for plaintiff.\nH. L. Gibbs, F. A. Daniel, Jr., A. D. Ward, and W. F. Ward for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0687-01",
  "first_page_order": 739,
  "last_page_order": 739
}