{
  "id": 8657839,
  "name": "BENNIE ROE, by his next friend v. JAMES JOURNEGAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Roe v. Journegan",
  "decision_date": "1920-03-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "686",
  "last_page": "686",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "179 N.C. 686"
    }
  ],
  "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": "142 N. C., 231",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651913
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/142/0231-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 N. C., 262",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 146,
    "char_count": 1616,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.454,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20766751266193512
    },
    "sha256": "aca25024b75af787149e3262189371c7ab129f1e1a9ec27e201a997490816775",
    "simhash": "1:30d6d148f10f83ff",
    "word_count": 289
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:12:15.491038+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BENNIE ROE, by his next friend v. JAMES JOURNEGAN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe facts are fully stated in the report of the first appeal in this action. 175 N. C., 262.\nOn the second trial the court admitted the same declaration of W. S. Roe, which the court formerly held to be incompetent, and the plaintiff, having excepted, again appealed.\nThis ruling of the judge was upon the idea that the defendant having introduced evidence that W. S. Roe was not the sole heir of his father and that he moved from the land in controversy and bought other land; that this met the requirements of the court in the former opinion, but, while these circumstances were properly considered they do not meet the burden cast by law on the defendant of showing \u201cThat the declaration was against the interest of the declarant, that die had no probable motive to falsify the fact declared\u2019 (Smith v. Moore, 142 N. C., 231), and that there was \u2018a total absence of interest to pervert the fact.\u2019 Smith v. Moore, quoting from Lord Ellenborough.\u201d 175 N. C., 262.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wm. H. and Thos. W. Ruffin and W. M. Person for plaintiff.",
      "W. H. Yarborough for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BENNIE ROE, by his next friend v. JAMES JOURNEGAN.\n(Filed 24 March, 1920.)\nEvidence \u2014 Declarations Against Interest \u2014 Title\u2014Burden of Proof.\nThe declarations of the son of one in the chain of title to lands, -is not against interest when he had acquired other lands and had moved thereon to live, and was not the only heir at law of his father.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Gui\u00f3n, J., at the November Term, 1919, of FbANKXIN.\nThis is an action to recover land.\nThere was a verdict and judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.\nWm. H. and Thos. W. Ruffin and W. M. Person for plaintiff.\nW. H. Yarborough for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0686-01",
  "first_page_order": 742,
  "last_page_order": 742
}